Skip to main content


See other formats

v - 

' tf ,>* M K 

. f , 1* % 

'" ' 

D DDD1 D3D77fla 


., , - , , , - , i 

" '' ^'\^ - - / ' ! '' : - 11^''^ ^ .^ - -'^ r ' *%^V^^^ 

,V, S ,,' V-l |*f^;U44i 11'il^fvfc/"^!; ' ' ' ;, ,4 ' V"" 1 ", ../"^'li ^'^'rV'!^' : ' '- ' * ; '! 

>' ''' ' "' '' l *' ' * '* 

"S^.^,-',** S --- 1 ~o~':^m f H 



4^*' ' 


l^i! 11 ' '',.'' 

& '^jj ,)',;,,, ',':<!': ' 1 I ' 

ifr^'7 "^^"T.:"" 

11 " " lf 

- '"''(" '' - ,'^''i S'^'-v*',", i '. '!;'" 'K'f'''u'' '", ' '''''' -' ' 'i x ^^ '"*' >' / ' '" ; ,; "' ^^'E'^ * ;/ ' '.' ,'iC'*w' ; '' I'-'^LJL i+ ^ . ; ', '-'A* -A ' 1 '' ? ' ! *if f 


' <i, 
f, f 


j)f n T.Aa 


lBt.nry og- 


g^tear CardinThit rocket 

Books wffl b d *T < P*Wto ci pcqp 

Public Library 
Kuta* City, 


MAY ^' 

A HISTORY.. Qg.TJEie...... 











Tfa Haddm Gr*ftt*** t 1m, t Cam^m, N, j, 







AIM o this history is to show the American Episcopal 
Church as a living institution, and to supply a connected nar 
rative o its development, both internally and in its relations 
with the society in which it is situated. Such an object neces 
sarily involves some lessening o the emphasis placed upon 
dramatic incidents and striking personalities, but I hope that the 
inherent interest of the Church's story, which I have endeavored 
to bring out as fully as possible, will more than compensate for 
this loss, if it is a loss. 

As to sources, I have relied rather extensively upon secondary 
authorities in preparing chapters one, two, and eight, and for a 
few details elsewhere. Otherwise, the history has been based 
entirely upon a study of original sources, though in this class I 
include a large number of contemporary biographies which are 
not "primary" sources in the technical sense, but which generally 
represent the nearest approach that can now be made to their 
subjects. The excuse for using secondary sources in the chapters 
mentioned is that they deal with subjects which have been ex 
haustively treated by previous historians, and it seemed advisable 
to devote the time available for research to an investigation of the 
extensive portions of the history where a fresh approach appeared 
to be necessary. Parts of chapter nine are based on a sketch of 
Bishop White which I prepared for the Bishop White Prayer 
Book Society while already engaged in the present work, but that 
sketch was the result of a careful study of all the available sources. 
The secondary sources to which I am most indebted are W. S. 
Perry's The History of the American "Episcopal Church., Volume I, 
for the first part of chapter one and for most of the material in 
chapter two which was not taken from William Bradford's His 
tory of Plymouth Plantation or John Winthrop's Journal:, F. L. 
Hawks's Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History of the United 
States^ Volume I, for the portion of chapter one dealing with 



Virginia; and A. L. Cross's Anglican Episcopate and the American 
Colonies for chapter eight. All other secondary works consulted, 
together with a portion of the original sources, are listed in the 

Acknowledgments are due to Professor Frank Gavin of The 
General Theological Seminary, without whose advice and en 
couragement the work would never have been undertaken; to 
JDr. Lewis C. Washburn of Christ Church, Philadelphia, the 
librarians of General Seminary, the New York Historical Society, 
and the Wisconsin State Historical Society for their courteous co 
operation, especially in permitting the use of valuable manuscripts; 
to Professor H. C. Robbins of The General Theological Sem 
inary, who has kindly read over the later chapters of the book 
and offered many helpful suggestions; to Miss Mary Beattie Brady 
of the Religious Motion Picture Foundation, Mr. F. L. Olmsted of 
the General Convention Committee of the Diocese of New Jersey, 
"The Spirit of Missions," and Mr. Alexander B. Andrews of 
Raleigh, N. C., for friendly assistance in obtaining illustrations; 
and to my friend, Miss Catharine Wisner, for invaluable assistance 
in reading proofs. 

October, 1935. 




Introductory Early Explorations Gilbert and Raleigh Roanoke 
Fate of the Colony Projected Colonies in New England Sir 
Ferdinando Gorges -Colony at Monhegan The Settlement at 
Jamestown, 1607 Robert Hunt "Dale's Laws" Henrico Parish 
The First Assembly, 1619 College Projected Ecclesiastical Laws 
o 1624 Virginia a Royal Colony Reception o Ministers Dis 
senters in Virginia The Puritan Revolution Vestries The 
Restoration Church Life in the Seventeenth Century In the Older 


The Puritans The Pilgrims Representatives of the Church at 
Plymouth John Lyford John Oldom Morton of Merrymount 
Return of Morton The Salem Colony The Settlement at Boston 
Election of Ministers The "Old Planters" Objectors Among 
the Puritans Efforts to Subject the Puritans to the Church Com 
missioners for New England Attack on the Massachusetts Charter 
The Church Comes to Boston Organization of King's Chapel 
Sir Edmund Andros Building the Chapel The Church in New 
Hampshire Church Settlements in Maine Beginnings in New 
York The Founding of Maryland The Church in Maryland 
Protestants in the Ascendency. 


Characteristics of the New Century Religion in the Colonies 
Policy of the Government Not Consistently Carried Out Dis 
advantages of the Church's Political Connection The Governor 
Jurisdiction of the Bishop of London The Commissaries 
Bishop Gibson and Bishop Sherlock Commissary Blair Com 
missary Bray and the S.P.G. Formation of the S.P.C.K. 
S.P.G. Organized George Keith Sent to Colonies John Talbot 
Talbot in New Jersey Importance of the S.P.G. Its Special 
Interest in New England Criticism of the S.P.G. Difficulty of 
Obtaining Local Support Income of the S.P.G. The Secretary 
Discipline of the S.P.G. Character of the Missionaries Morals 
of the Clergy In the South Variations in Quality of Clergy In 
the Middle of the Century Native Clergy Changes in Church 
Life- Church Buildings Clergy Relief "The Great Awakening" 
Its Effect on the Church. 




Virginia The College of William and Mary Sir Edmund Andros, 
Governor His Quarrel with Blair Nicholson Again Governor 
Governor Spottswood Induction Controversy Church Life in 
Virginia Commissary Dawson The Frontier The Presbyterians 
Clerical Salaries Maryland The Act of Establishment, 1702 
Common Schools Governor Hart's Inquiries Commissaries Hen 
derson and Wilkinson Church Life in Maryland Attempt to Dis 
cipline the Clergy The Tobacco Controversy Value of Livings 
Dissent in Maryland South Carolina Ecclesiastical Legislation 
The Act of Establishment Francis Le Jau Commissary Johnston 
Clerical Salaries Grievances of the Clergy Indian War Revolt 
Against the Proprietors Commissary Garden Deterioration of the 
Clergy Dissenters in South Carolina The Frontier North Caro 
lina Mission of John Blair Other Missionaries Act of Establish 
ment Dissenters in North Carolina Georgia Church Establish 
ment Florida. 


Contrast with the South Massachusetts Significance of the Witch 
craft Panic The Church in 1689 Samuel Myles Christ Church 

John Checkley His Controversies and Trials Expansion of the 
Church in Massachusetts Newbury Struggle Against the Con 
gregational Establishment Growth of the Church in Boston Out 
side of Boston Connecticut Beginnings of the Church at Strat 
ford Work of George Muirson The Yale Converts Three of 
Them Ordained Growth of the Church in Connecticut Struggle 
for Religious Liberty Whitefield in Connecticut Rhode Island 
Controversy at Newport Growth of the Church in Rhode Island 

New Hampshire Maine Church Life in New England 



Their Characteristics New York Act of Establishment Organiza 
tion of Trinity Parish William Vesey Growth of Trinity Church 
Rectors and Assistants Lord Cornbury Col. Heathcote and the 
Church in Westchester The Church at Rye Long Island Con 
troversy at Jamaica Its Conclusion Hempstead Staten Island 

Albany German Settlers King's College Pennsylvania Organ 
ization of Christ's Church Evan Evans Expansion of the Church 
in Pennsylvania Later History of Christ Church Trouble with 
Urmiston St. Peter's Church St. Paul's ChurcH College of Phila 
delphiaCharacter of Provost Smith Work Among the Germans 
The Frontier Delaware New Jersey Early Missionaries Dis 
missal of Talbot Growth of the Church in New Jersey Thomas 
Bradbury Chandler. 


General Indifference to the Conversion 'of the Indians and Negroes 
Efforts of the Church Work Among the Indians in Virginia 



Interest of Governor Spottswood The Indian Problem in South 
Carolina Other Southern Colonies Pennsylvania and New Jersey 
New England Work Among the Iroquois in New York 
Thomas Barclay William Andrews Other Missionaries Sir 
William Johnson John Stuart The Negroes Difficulties of Con 
version S.P.G. Catechists: Elias Neau William Sturgeon 
Virginia Maryland South Carolina: Work o Le Jau Obstacles 
to Conversion of Negroes Commissary Garden's Plan North 
Carolina and Georgia New England Work of James Honeyman. 


Early Efforts to Obtain Bishops The Need for Bishops Why They 
Were Not Sent Political Objections Early Hanoverian Policies 
Objections of the Dissenters Influence of Colonial Politics Bishop 
Compton's Observations The S.P.G. Plan Its Near Success 
The Struggle Continued Bishop Seeker's Sermon Bishop Sher 
lock's Efforts Sherlock's Memorial Intermittent Efforts Clerical 
Conventions in the Colonies Their Petitions for a Bishop 
Southern Opposition Remonstrance of the Northern Clergy 
Pamphlet Warfare Chandler's Pamphlets Newspaper Controversy 
Was There A Nonjuring Episcopate in the Colonies? Report 
Widely Circulated. 


Position of the Church in the Revolution Loyalists in the Church 
Attitude of the Laity Leadership of Churchmen in the Revolu 
tion Plight of the Tory Clergy The Situation in New England 
Connecticut General Tryon's Raid Tory Refugees in New 
York New York City Before the British Occupation The Rest of 
the State Pennsylvania William White William Smith New 
Jersey The South Situation at the Close of the War Causes of 
the Church's Decline Causes Operating Especially in the South 
Opposition of the Lower Classes Growth of Dissent The Revolu 
tionary Philosophy Decline of the Church Not to be Exaggerated 
Beginnings of Reorganization Name of the Church Leadership 
of White His Theological Position Leadership of the Middle Col 
onies in the Reorganization of the Church Attitude of the South 
White's Pamphlet Its Importance The Second Maryland Con 
vention The Pennsylvania Declaration of Principles The Meeting 
at New Brunswick Seabury Elected Bishop of Connecticut His 
Consecration Meeting in New York, 1784 The Convention of 
1785 Bishops Elected in Four States The "Proposed Book" 
The Convention of 1786: Attack on Seabury Communication 
from the Archbishops Consecration of White and Provoost The 
Convention of 1789: First Meeting New England Joins the 
Convention Concessions to Connecticut Consecration of James 


A Quiet Interval Extension of the Episcopate Purcell Incident 
Other States Seek Bishops Relations with the Methodists Coke's 


Proposal Bishop Madison's Proposed Declaration Overtures from 
the Lutherans The Early Bishops Distrust of the Episcopate 
Moderation Necessary Work of Seabury and Jarvis Bishops Pro- 
voost and Moore in New York Bishop White in Pennsylvania 
His Western Tour His Civic Leadership. 


Consecration of Hobart and Griswold Hobart "Churchmanship" 
Griswold and the Evangelicals Evangelical Principles and 
Methods Attitude Towards the Sacraments Missionary Spirit 
High Churchmanship The Church and Society: High Church 
View Evangelical View Character of Hobart His Early Career 
Controversy with the Presbyterians Dr. Mason Difficulty of As 
sembling Bishops for Consecration Cave Jones Affair Supporters 
of Jones Hobart's "Charges" and "Pastoral Letters" Contro 
versies His Work as a Diocesan Financial Support Growth of 
the Church in New York Organized Societies Bishop Onderdonk 
Organization of Eastern Diocese Early Career of Griswold 
His Character Condition and Prospects of the Eastern Diocese 
Growth of the Diocese Division of the Diocese Griswold's Meth 
ods Revival of the Church in Virginia: Meade and Moore South 
Carolina Theodore Dehon Maryland North Carolina New Jer 
sey Controversy in Pennsylvania Disputed Election Importance 
of the Period Theological Education General Seminary Pro 
posed, 1814 Committee Appointed, 1817 Instructions Begun, 
1819 The Sherred Legacy The Virginia Seminary Efforts to 
Found a Seminary in Massachusetts Sunday Schools Parochial 
Societies Periodicals Church Schools Church Colleges Scholars 
of the Church Preponderance of Women in the Church. 


Meaning of the Word "Missionary" Early Missionaries to the 
West Philander Chase and His Mission to Ohio He Seeks Help 
From England Opposition of Hobart Founding of Kenyon Col 
legeRebellion of the Faculty, and Chase's Resignation Chase in 
Illinois Organization of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary 
Society, 1820 Work in the WestEarly Efforts Indian School 

Policies of the Society Reorganization of the Society, 1835 

"Missionary Bishops" Provided For Jackson Kemper Bishop 
Kemper's Visitations Founding of ^Nashotah It Becomes a 
Theological Seminary Other Missionary Bishops Breck in Minne 
sotaCalifornia Theological Disputes Hurt the Society The 
Foreign Field Greece Africa China Missionary Spirit The In 
dians The Negroes. 


Changes in the Church Effects of the Oxford Movement The 
Tracts for the Times The Tractarian Position Evangelical Op 
positionTract Ninety Spread of the Movement Theological 
Position Usages and CeremoniesCultural Overtones Devotional 



Life Recent Liberalization The Movement in America Opposi 
tion to It The Carey Ordination, 1843 Protested by Smith and 
Anthon General Seminary Investigated The Bishops* Queries 
The Oxford Movement Attacked in General Convention Suspension 
of Bishop Henry Onderdonk Trial of Bishop Benjamin Onderdonk 
His Condemnation Trial of Bishop Doane The Problem of 
Providing Episcopal Supervision for New York Controversy in 
Maryland Dispute in Massachusetts Bishop L. S. Ives He Be 
comes a Roman Catholic The "Muhlenberg Memorial," 1853 Its 
Proposals Its Supporters Its Weaknesses Memorial Papers Re 
sults of Memorial Friction in General Convention. 


A Split Avoided The General Convention of 1862 The Com 
mittee of Nine The Pastoral Letter The General Convention of 
1865 Irenic Resolution Proceedings of the House of Bishops 
Controversy between Bishops Hopkins and Potter Services of 
Bishops Mcllvaine and Clark Ritualistic Controversy Legality of 
Ritualism Tyng Case Bishop Hopkins* Opinion General Con 
vention of 1868 General Convention of 1871 James De Koven 
Right Rev. George David Cummins Withdrawal of Bishop Cum 
mins and Others from the Church The General Convention of 
1874 De Koven's Speech Ritual Canon Passed Seymour Case 
Feelings Begin to Soften Difficulties of General Seminary Two 
New Seminaries Monasticism Free Churches Small Dioceses. 


Later Development of Ritualism Rise of Liberalism The Essays 
and Reviews, 1855 Bishop Colenso The First Lambeth Con 
ference The American Church Congress Phillips Brooks Bishop 
Henry C. Potter The Briggs Case Influence of Lux Mundi 
Father Huntington and the Order of the Holy Cross William 
Reed Huntington Heresy Trials Growth of Anglo-Catholicism 
Proposed Changes in the Name of the Church Interest in Chris 
tian Reunion Committee on the Swedish Church The Resolution 
of 1865 Dr. Huntington's Platform Committee on Christian 
Unity, 1904 The Social Christian Movement Growth of a 
Social Outlook in the Church Resolutions on World Peace 
Committee on Capital and Labor The Divorce Problem Revision 
of the Prayer Book and Constitution The Order of Deaconesses 
Other Organizations Cathedral Building Periodicals Provision 
for Suffragans New Seminaries. 


Continuous Activity in the Mission Field Effects of the Civil 
War New Work Among Negroes Growth in the West The 
New West Rapid Growth Cultural Contrasts Organization of 
the Work Shortage of Ministers Finances Local Set-Backs 
Steady Growth Statistics of 1890: The Central West The Pacific 
States The Central West in 1915 The Pacific States in 1915 



The American Empire Alaska Puerto Rico and the Philippines 
The Hawaiian Islands The Canal Zone Work Among the 
Negroes The Indians Bishop Hare Oklahoma China Japan 
Liberia Latin America The Woman's Auxiliary. 


The World War War Record of the Church War Spirit in the 
General Convention of 1919 Post-war Reaction Buchmanism 
Catholicism and Liberalism Modernist Controversy Liberal Cath 
olicism The Liberal Evangelicals The Church Pension Fund 
The Presiding Bishop and Council Prayer Book Revision Re 
ligious Education Church Unity Interest in Social Questions 
Marriage and Divorce Missionary Work The Foreign Field in 
1935 Rate of Increase Statistics, 1935 Church Organizations 
Theological Seminaries Surplus of Clergy. 


INDEX 377 



Scene of the first church services within the present boundaries of 
the United States. 



Tower of the church built in 1647. 



From an old cut in "Annals of King's Chapel," by W. W. Foote, 1882. 

NEW AMSTERDAM 1626-28 33 

The Hartger's View, the earliest known view of New York. 




Official residence of the Bishop of London. 



Charleston, South Carolina. 


The church of the Wesleys and WMtefield. 





From an old print. 


From an old cartoon in W. S. Perry's "History of the American Epis 
copal Church." 




Center of the Mohawk Mission. 


The Old North Church of Paul Revere fame. 



Scene of the first Episcopal election in America. 



From a portrait by Gilbert Stuart. 

From the architect's design, printed in the Seminary Catalog for 1834. 




From an etching: by Wil King-. 


Official residence o the Archbishop o Canterbury. 



Among scenes such as this, the western missionary had his work. 





Japanese Mission Kindergarten, 1910. 



Atlantic City, New Jersey, October 10, 1934. 

VANIA, 1730 Inside front cover 

By H. Moll, geographer, in "An Historical Account of the Incorporated 
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts." 


Divided into its parishes, etc., according to the latest accounts, 1730. 
By H. Moll, geographer, in "An Historical Account of the Incorporated 
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts." 





T IS A circumstance whose importance to our cultural history 
can scarcely be exaggerated that the voyage of Columbus Introductory 
preceded the publication o Luther's Ninety-five Theses by but a 
quarter of a century, and that the period of exploration and early 
settlement in America corresponded with the struggle of Protes 
tants and Catholics for the control of Europe. The New World 
thus inherited, at its very birth, the ripe religious controversies 
of the old, and the conquest of a wilderness was conditioned by 
some of the most abstruse issues of theology. To discover and 
explore a new region served not only to enhance one's personal 
glory and the greatness of one's country, but to extend the in 
fluence of one's particular form of Christianity as well, and even 
piracy, if directed against the enemies of one's faith, seemed to 
possess a certain religious sanction. It was therefore inevitable that, 
as Spanish explorers brought with them the Roman Catholicism 
of Spain, and Dutch explorers the Calvinism of the Netherlands, 
so English explorers should carry with them the Church of Eng 
land, and English colonists, except when they had migrated from 
motives of dissent, should be colonists of the Church as well as 
the State, making the beginning of the Episcopal Church in this 
country contemporaneous with the beginning of English settle 

The claim of England to a foothold in North America rested 
primarily on the voyage made by John Cabot in 1497, under the Early 
patronage of Henry VII, which resulted in the discovery of the Explorations 
northern continent, but the great internal changes which took 
place under the succeeding monarchs interrupted the activities 
of English explorers, and it was not until the strong arm of 
Elizabeth had brought a certain degree of stability at home that 
they were resumed. In 1578 a fleet under the command of Martin 



Frobisher crossed the ocean to seek for the Northwest Passage 
and gold along the icy shores of Hudson's Bay. With them went 
a clergyman of the Church of England, "one Master Wolfall," 
who, according to Hakluyt, the great chronicler of English explo 
rations, had left a good living and a virtuous wife in England to 
go as chaplain of the fleet, solely out of his love for the souls of 
the infidel natives. What he did for them is not recorded, but 
at least he celebrated the Holy Communion for the officers and 
gentlemen of the fleet, on land, and this was the first service of 
the Church ever read upon North American soil. 

Voyages to America, either for exploration or plunder, became 
Gilbert and more frequent as the years went on, and in all of them the Church 
Raleigh was re p rese nted in one way or another. The adventurous circum 

navigation of the globe by the freebooter Drake, almost con 
temporaneous with Frobisher's effort, led to the first use of the 
Prayer Book upon the Pacific Coast in 1579, and this was also 
its first use within the present territorial limits of the United 
States. In 1583 Sir Humphrey Gilbert made the first attempt to 
settle an English colony in America. One of his motives was 
declared to be the planting of Christian inhabitants in the new 
land and the conversion of the natives, and his patent, originally 
granted in 1578, contained a clause, which was to become more 
or less standard in colonial charters, to the effect that the laws 
of the colony should agree as far as possible with those of England, 
and that they should not be "against the true Christian faith or 
religion now professed in the Church of England." Gilbert landed 
in St. John's Harbor, Newfoundland, August 4, 1583, and after 
solemnly taking possession of the forest as its feudal lord, pro 
ceeded, with admirable economy, to issue three laws for the gov 
ernment of the colony, one of which provided that the public 
exercise of religion should be according to the use of the Church 
of England. The colony, however, was short-lived. The loss of 
one of his ships on an exploring voyage forced Sir Humphrey 
to return to England, and ere he had reached that country, the 
frigate which bore him went to the bottom, carrying him with it. 
Gilbert's colonial projects were at once taken up by his half- 
brother, Sir Walter Raleigh, a favorite of Queen Elizabeth, from 
whom he obtained a fresh patent in substantially the same terms as 
that of 1578. In the spring of 1584 Raleigh sent two English naviga- 


tors, Philip Amadas and Arthur Barlowe, to reconnoiter a site for 
a colony. They spent two months on the coast of North Carolina, 
returning with two captured natives and a glowing but not very 
accurate description of the country. Their reports excited great 
interest in England, and Elizabeth graciously permitted the new 
region to be called Virginia, in honor of the state of life on which 
she appears to have prided herself. 

In 1585 Raleigh dispatched a fleet of seven vessels under the 
command of Sir Richard Grenville with colonists for his new Roanokc 
dominion, under the governorship of Ralph Lane. With them 
was Thomas Hariot, a distinguished scientist, who was interested 
in studying the natural history of the country and in the con 
version of the natives; and an artist, John White, who was to 
supply pictures of the various objects of interest that might be 
encountered. Under Hariot's direction, prayers were regularly 
read, and some impression, of a religious nature, was made upon 
the Indians, chiefly because the weapons and other mechanical 
contrivances of the settlers seemed to them to be the results of 
special divine favor. But the colonists did not remain long at 
Roanoke, the island on which they had settled, and the next sum 
mer saw them returning to England with the fleet of Sir Francis 
Drake, who had chanced to come along at a time when they were 
sorely discouraged by the failure of supplies to arrive from Eng 
land. When the supply ships did arrive, a few weeks later, they 
found the colony deserted, and were obliged to return home, 
leaving behind fifteen men, who were never heard from again. 

Raleigh, however, was undaunted, and the favorable reports of 
Lane and Hariot on the soil and climate of "Virginia" gave him 
some grounds for encouragement. The year 1587, therefore, 
saw the departure of one more ill-fated expedition for America. 
Its governor was to be John White, the artist of the earlier expedi 
tion, and it was furnished with a municipal charter for "The 
City of Raleigh in Virginia," an early example of that irrepressible 
optimism which was so often to inspire the settlement of our 
country. It was also enriched by a donation of one hundred 
pounds from its founder, to be invested for the planting of Chris 
tianity in America. 

The expedition had been directed to the shores of Chesapeake 
Bay, but settled instead at Roanoke ? where it found the dwelling- 


houses built by Lane, and the bones of such of the fifteen as 
had not fled to an unknown fate. On August 13, 1587, the colony 
witnessed the baptism of Manteo, one of the Indians captured by 
Amadas and Barlowe, who was honored with the resounding 
title of Lord of Roanoke and Dasmonguepeuk. A week later 
occurred the birth of Virginia Dare, a granddaughter of the 
governor, and the first English child born in the New World, 
who, in due time, was also christened. From these incidents it 
has been inferred that a priest of the Church was present, either 
as chaplain of the colony, or of the fleet which brought it over, 
but of this there is no definite proof. 

The colony, however, though it had an auspicious beginning, 
Fate of the was destined to have a mysterious end. Governor White presently 
Colony returned to England, for reasons which are not entirely clear, leav 

ing behind him, with the rest of the colonists, his daughter and 
her child. When he reached the homeland, the Spanish Armada 
was approaching, and the ensuing conflict, followed by the finan 
cial embarrassments of Raleigh, which obliged him to transfer 
his patent to a company, delayed the relief of the colony for over 
a year. When White again reached Roanoke he found that the 
colonists had departed, leaving behind them, as had been ar 
ranged, an indication of their destination by cutting the word 
CROATOAN in the bark of a tree. This inscription was unac 
companied by any indication of distress, so it is presumed that they 
had merely sought a more satisfactory location, but before the 
ships could look for them a series of accidents forced their retire 
ment to the West Indies, and the colonists were never located. 
They may have been killed or starved, or they may have mingled 
with the Indians, but certain it is that no white person ever saw 
them again. 

The next attempts at colonization were made in the region that 
Projected was soon to be known as New England, and under the patronage 
Colonies in of promoters other than Raleigh. In 1602 Bartholomew Gosnold, 
New England w ^ a sma jj com pany, spent some weeks on the island of Cutty- 
hunk in Buzzard's Bay, off the Massachusetts coast. A settlement 
was apparently projected, but when a cargo of native commodities 
had been collected, the expedition returned to England, where the 
proprietors became involved in a suit with Raleigh, who sought 
to confiscate their cargo on the strength of his patent, because 


the voyage had been made without his consent. In 1603 another 
brief settlement was made, this time by Martin Pring, in the 
harbors of Plymouth and Duxbury. With Pring was one Robert 
Salterne, a candidate for Holy Orders, who may have read the 
services of the Church upon the site of the future home of the 

In 1605 George Waymouth visited the shores of New Eng 
land and, after a brief sojourn, returned with some captive In- sir Ferdinando 
dians. These were seized by the governor of Plymouth, where Gorges 
Waymouth landed, and stimulated in that officer, Sir Ferdinando 
Gorges by name, a lifelong interest in American colonization, 
which was to cost him a great deal of trouble and expense, and 
bring him little profit. They also, together with the reports of 
the returned settlers, served to revive the general interest in 
America so that a new company was organized for the purpose 
of colonization, with which Gorges and Sir John Popham, the 
Lord Chief Justice of England, presently became associated. The 
first two ships sent out by these adventurers were captured by 
the Spaniards, but a third ship, dispatched by Popham, succeeded 
in reaching the coast of Maine, and, as the season was summer, 
brought back such glowing accounts of the country that it was 
determined to send out colonists without delay, and the following 
spring (1607), two ships under the command of Raleigh Gilbert, 
a son of Sir Humphrey, and George Popham, a brother of the 
Chief Justice, sailed for Maine. They landed on the island of 
Monhegan, and on the ensuing Sunday their chaplain, Richard 
Seymour, read the services of the Prayer Book, and preached. Colony at 
A week from the following Wednesday, a site for the settlement Monhegan 
was finally chosen, another sermon was preached, the President's 
commission was read, George Popham was chosen for the office, 
and the laws prepared by the proprietors were promulgated. 
Among them was one providing for the practice of religion 
according to the use of the Church of England, and another call 
ing upon the colonists to make exertions for the conversion of the 
Indians. The colonists remained at their settlement through the 
winter, under the leadership of Popham, and, after his death, of 
Gilbert, but with the coming of the supply ship in the spring 
they returned to England, where family affairs required Gilbert's 
presence, though it is possible that a few of the colonists had 


withdrawn to the mouth of the Sheepscot River, where they may 
have remained. The Chief Justice had died in England about the 
same time as his brother in America, but Gorges was to continue 
his efforts for colonization, with indifferent success, until the terri 
tory was swallowed up by Massachusetts. 

These instances of the early appearance of the Church of Eng 
land upon American shores, which were assembled through the 
erudition of Bishop William Stevens Perry, the most distinguished 
of our Church historians, are items of antiquarian or sentimental 
interest only, for they led to no results of historical importance. 
It cannot even be said that the failure of the early experiments 
at colonization taught later settlers what blunders they should 
avoid, for nearly all of the mistakes of the previous adventurers, 
as well as some fresh ones, were made in the planting of the 
Jamestown colony in 1607, and the fact that this settlement suc 
ceeded where others had failed was due to accident rather than 
to any superiority of design. Nevertheless, it did succeed, and with 
it begins the continuous history of the Episcopal Church in this 

There was, indeed, one respect in which the Virginia colony 
The Settle- was more favored than those which had been attempted before, 
ment of an( j t j aat was ^^ j t en j O y e d the more active support and pro- 

jamestown, tect i on O f t h e monarch. James I, who would have been a great 
statesman had he been able to live up to his best moments, saw 
more clearly than his predecessors the value of American coloniza 
tion. To encourage settlement, therefore, he chartered two great 
companies, one of London and one of Plymouth, who were to 
settle, respectively, the southern and northern portions of the 
territory claimed by England, with a large neutral area of two 
hundred miles along the coast, in between, which might be 
claimed by the first company establishing a colony in it. Of these 
two corporations, the London Company appears to have been 
the most active, and to it belongs the honor of planting the first 
successful English colony in America. 

Pedagogy requires classification, and teachers are constantly 
obliged to simplify their subjects by the creation of categories 
which are only roughly accurate and which, if taken too literally, 
tend to impress the minds of the pupils with a sharpness of divi 
sion which does not in fact exist. Of such a sort is the distinction, 


commonly drawn in the teaching of American history, between 
the ^ colonies which were founded for religious motives and those 
which were established for other purposes. Insofar as the most 
conspicuous motives of the first settlers and promoters are con 
cerned, this distinction is probably valid, but if it is understood 
to imply that considerations of self-interest were altogether un 
known to the founders of religious refuges, or that those who 
established other colonies were entirely oblivious to the concerns 
of religion, it is certainly fallacious. The London Company, for 
instance, was undoubtedly founded in the hope, though it was 
to prove a vain one, of making a profit, but, nevertheless, mission 
ary ^ activity in the New World was one of the objects expressed 
in its charter, and the earliest instructions which it supplied to 
its colonists called for the practice of Christianity in conformity 
with the standards of the Church of England. 

One of the original petitioners for the charter of the London 
Company was Robert Hunt, a clergyman of the Established Robert Hunt 
Church, and when the first group of colonists departed for their 
new home in the spring of 1607, he sailed with them to devote his 
life to building up the Church in the infant settlement, where 
he remained until his death, the date of which is unknown. On 
the fourteenth of May, the day after landing, he celebrated the 
first Eucharist upon the soil of Virginia, and shortly thereafter 
the colonists commenced the erection of a church as one of their 
first buildings. Like most of the earlier experiments, the colony 
at Jamestown was hampered by over-elaborate instructions, and by 
a division of leadership, not to mention the choice of a rather 
unsatisfactory location, the expenditure of the colonists' time in a 
search for gold when they should have been planting crops, the 
incapacity of most of the settlers for husbandry, and the discour 
agement to industry involved in requiring all to work for the 
Company, bringing their produce to a common store. Hunt is 
said to have done what he could to keep peace among the lead 
ers, but his efforts were unsuccessful, and when a relief ship 
arrived at the end of the first winter, it found most of the officers 
either dead or in jail. A majority of the inhabitants had also 
succumbed to the hardships of their situation. The condition of 
the colony was precarious for several years, and the settlers were 
at least once on the verge of returning to England, when the 


arrival of a new governor and fresh supplies induced them to 

They struggled on, however, and in time evolved a properly 
functioning community. In 1608 the first recorded marriage in 
the colony was celebrated, probably by Hunt. In 1610, Lord Dela 
ware came over as governor and brought with him a chaplain, 
who was apparently the second clergyman in the colony. In the 
same year, the charter of the Company was revised, in the hope 
of strengthening it, and one of the clauses of the new charter 
required that all persons migrating to the colony should take the 
oath of supremacy, whereby the King was acknowledged as the 
head of the Church. 

In 1611 the Company, in an effort to improve the discipline of 
"Dale's Laws" the colony, many of whose inhabitants were not very amenable 
to control, issued a set of laws which had the effect of practically 
placing the colonists under martial law. These laws were pro 
mulgated by the then governor, Thomas Dale, and under the 
name of "Dale's Laws" they have become a byword for severity, 
scarcely less famous than the partly legendary "Blue Laws" of 
Connecticut, but Dale acted only as the representative of his 
superiors, and was not himself responsible for the provisions of 
the code. 

The ecclesiastical laws in this collection, had they ever been 
enforced, would have set up a Little Inquisition in Virginia, and 
made the clergy one of the most powerful classes in the com 
munity. All military officers were to see that "Almighty God be 
duly and daily served," to call upon the people to hear sermons, 
and to frequent daily Morning and Evening Prayer themselves. 
Offenders were to be punished according to martial law. No one 
was to speak impiously against the Trinity or any person of it, 
"or against the known articles of the Christian faith," on pain 
of death, and death was also prescribed for blasphemy of the 
Divine Name, or for saying or doing anything which might "tend 
to the derision or despite of God's Holy Word." Severe penalties 
were provided for unlawful oaths, and anyone failing in respect 
for the clergy was to be whipped three times or to apologize 
publicly on three separate Sabbaths. Every person was required 
to attend service twice daily, on penalty, for the first offense, of 
the loss of one day's rations, for the second, of a flogging, and 


for the third, of six months in the galleys, though it is doubtful 
if such an institution existed in Virginia. For Sabbath-breaking 
the penalties were even more severe. All preachers and ministers 
were to preach every Sunday morning and catechize in the eve 
ning, and to say prayers twice daily. They were also to choose 
four of the most religious and best-disposed persons in their 
parishes to inform them of the sins of the people and to keep up 
the church buildings (that is, to act as a rudimentary vestry), and 
were to keep a record of all christenings, marriages, and deaths, 
"upon the burthen of a neglectful conscience, and upon pain of 
losing their entertainment." Finally, every colonist was to repair 
to the minister immediately upon his arrival and inform him as to 
the condition _pf his religious faith. Should the minister decide 
that the colonist was in need of instruction, he must submit to it, 
or be whipped, upon complaint of the clergyman to the governor. 

Actually, of course, these laws were never more than a paper 
code. Even if the severity of the penalties (which were harsh 
even when judged by contemporary standards) had not forced 
them into desuetude, their disregard of the actual conditions of 
colonial life would have done so, for they presupposed an effec 
tive Church Establishment in a community where there were 
probably not more than two clergymen, ministering to a hand 
ful of scattered and ignorant settlers. For many of the colonists, 
attendance at daily services would probably have been not so 
much a hardship as an impossibility, and had the ministers 
undertaken to give private religious instruction to all who were 
in need of it, they would have had but little time left for prepar 
ing their sermons and keeping their records. 

A brighter incident of the year was the founding, by Governor 
Dale, of Henrico Parish, the second in the colony. Its first min- Hcnrico Parish 
ister was the Reverend Alexander Whitaker, who, because of his 
long and devoted service in the colony, earned the title of 
"Apostle to Virginia." He was the son of Dr. William Whitaker, 
Master of St. John's, Cambridge, and is said to have been well 
to do, having gone to Virginia from religious motives only. It 
was he who baptized and married the romantic Pocahontas, the 
reputed savior of Captain John Smith, and the actual wife of 
John Rolfe, the father of the Virginia tobacco industry. 

Dale's laws did not remain even nominally in force for a very 

The First 



long time, for Governor Argall revised them in 1618, substituting 
milder penalties, though persons who failed to attend church on 
Sundays and holidays were still to be severely punished. 

In 1619 the Company was again reorganized and a more liberal 
party obtained control The new charter provided for a local 
legislature with an elective lower house, and when this body, 
the first representative assembly in America, met in the same year, 
it proceeded to give statutory effect to another clause of the 
charter which required that a "glebe" (a tract of farm land) 
should be provided for a clergyman in every borough, and that 
each minister should also have a fixed revenue from his parish. 
In the opinion of an early historian of the Church in Virginia, 
Dr. F. L. Hawks, this law should be regarded as the first real Act 
of Establishment in the colony, because, though previous laws had 
required the use of Church services, they had made no specific 
provision for the support of the ministry. Actually, however, the 
Church never did enjoy in Virginia, or any other colony, a com 
plete establishment, such as existed in England, for she never was 
able to obtain any bishops, or an adequate system of ecclesiastical 
courts. We shall have many occasions to see, as we go along, how 
seriously the want of both hampered the maintenance of ecclesi 
astical discipline and the promotion and expansion of the Church's 
usefulness. Before leaving the year 1619, however, it may be well 
to remark that this year also saw the arrival of a cargo of mar 
riageable females and of the first shipload of negro slaves. 

The permanence of the colony now seemed assured, and it was 
felt that steps should be taken to increase the number of clergy 
men in the colony, of whom there were at that time but five. 
To encourage the coming of more ministers, the Company 
undertook to settle six tenants on every glebe, and the Bishop of 
London agreed to try to find priests who would come over, an 
action which may have been one source of the jurisdiction which 
that prelate eventually came to exercise over the Church in the 
American colonies. 

More important than these measures, which were destined for 
some time to be but indifferently effective, was the project for a 
college and preparatory school at Henrico, to educate both Indians 
and settlers, which was set afoot about 1620, assuming for a time 
a promising aspect, with donations from the Company and the 


Bishop of London, and with the aid of a general subscription. 
Unhappily, however, an Indian war, which began in 1622, and 
which nearly resulted in the destruction of the colony, forced the 
temporary abandonment of the design. It was never entirely 
given up, but not until it obtained the energetic support of Com 
missary James Blair at the close of the century did it find practical 
realization. In the meantime, the honor of founding the first 
institution of higher learning within our borders was to go to the 
Puritans of the north. The Church historian can, however, find 
one bright spot in the dark history of the first Indian war, for it 
is recorded that a portion of the colony was saved from slaughter 
by the loyalty of a Christianized Indian named Chanco, an indi 
cation that the Virginia ministers had not been altogether oblivious 
of their duty to the natives. 

In 1624, when Francis Wyatt was governor, the legislature made 
some further provision for the Church. Places of worship and Ecclesiastical 
burial grounds were to be provided wherever the people were Laws 
accustomed to assemble for religious services. The Church was 
to adhere as far as possible to the canons of the Church of Eng 
land, and fines in tobacco were provided for unexcused absence 
from Sunday worship. March twenty-second, the day of the Indian 
massacre, was to be kept as a holy day, and the regular holy days 
of the Church were to be observed except when two of them came 
together in summer. Then one only might be kept, so that work 
in the fields would not be too long interrupted. A minister who 
was absent from his cure for more than two months in a year 
was to forfeit half his salary and, in the case of an absence exceed 
ing four months, would lose his entire yearly stipend and the 
cure. Anyone who disparaged a minister, so as to alienate the affec 
tions of his people and thereby decrease his usefulness, was to 
pay five hundred pounds of tobacco and ask forgiveness publicly in 
the congregation, unless he could produce satisfactory evidence to 
substantiate his charges. In order that the minister's salary might 
be secure, no one was to dispose of any of his tobacco until the 
claims of the minister had been satisfied, on pain of a double 
assessment. It was decreed that one person be appointed on each 
plantation to collect the minister's portion out of the best tobacco 
and corn. 

It is interesting to compare these laws with the code which 



Virginia a 
Royal Colony 

Reception of 

bears the name of Governor Dale. Both have the same object, and 

deal with substantially the same matters, but the laws of 1624, 
being passed by a legislature made up of practical colonists, and 

not by a group of theorists across the sea, are expressed in terms 
which have some relation to the actual situation in the colony. 
The duties they require are possible of performance under normal 
conditions, and moreover, the penalties they exact are sufficiently 
moderate to give them a reasonable prospect of being enforceable. 
About this time, the Company, which had been torn by dissen 
sion for some time, and a number of whose leaders, being inclined 
toward the Puritan party, had but slight favor with the court, was 
brought to an end by royal edict. Thus the colony passed under 
the immediate control of the King. This change, of which most of 
the settlers approved, had but little effect upon the internal affairs 
of the colony, whether ecclesiastical or civil. Under Sir John 
Hervey, in 1629, severe penalties were provided for failure to 
observe the canons of the Church, but it is not likely that these 
were very generally enforced, for the great body of canon law 
could have had only slight application to the still somewhat 
primitive conditions of the colony. 

A more important act of the same year was one which pro 
vided that no minister should be allowed to officiate unless he 
could show the governor a certificate of his ordination by some 
bishop in England and would promise to conform to the standards 
of the English Church. Any other minister was to be silenced by 
the governor, and if he proved obdurate, expelled from the colony. 
This law, of course, merely carried out the principle of the earlier 
acts requiring conformity to the Church of England in the public 
services of the colony, but it furnished a convenient means of 
enforcing that principle by excluding ministers not likely to 
conform. It may be worth noting that the act makes no specific 
reference to the authority of the Bishop of London, the certificate 
of any English bishop being considered sufficient. 

When the newly arrived clergyman had satisfied the governor 
of his episcopal ordination, and had given the promise of con 
formity, the governor was requested to "induct the said minister 
into any parish that shall make presentation of him." This pro 
vision, which formed the basis of ministerial tenure in Virginia 
throughout the colonial period, was to be the source of a great 


deal of discussion and conflict. Taking its terms as they were 
understood in English canon law, it had the effect o making the 
parish (which soon came to mean, if it did not already mean, 
the vestry) the "patron" of the livings, and placing the gov 
ernor in position of "Ordinary," or general ecclesiastical authority 
for the colony, dividing the power of appointment between 
them. It was not long, however, before the vestries discovered 
that, while a minister who was once presented and inducted as 
rector of the parish became largely free from their control, they 
could keep him pretty well subject to their will by allowing the 
parish to remain technically vacant, and hiring him upon a tem 
porary basis, usually for a year at a time. Such a practice was 
contrary to English law, which caused the right of appointment 
to devolve on the Ordinary, if presentation were not made in six 
months, but the vestries, for some reason, contended that they 
were not subject to the same rules as other patrons. They were 
never able to make good their claim legally, but in practice they 
were generally able to have their own way. 

Southern Churchmen in colonial times were generally charac 
terized about equally by zeal for the Establishment, in the imper 
fect form they had given it, and by opposition to any further 
strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline. At this early period the 
former quality was more conspicuous in the Virginians than the 
latter, and they were generally strong supporters of the High 
Church policies of Laud, and the claims of the Stuart monarchs, 
who, indeed, showed themselves well-disposed toward the colony. 
Early in the conflict which led to the English Civil War, an act 
was passed against the Puritans, though there can have been very 
few, if any of them, in the colony. 

The first evidence of the presence of dissent in Virginia comes, 
as a matter of fact, not from a Virginian but from a Massachusetts Dissenters in 
source. The Journal of Governor Winthrop records that one -Mr. Virginia 
Bennet, a gentleman of Virginia, arrived in Boston in 1642 "with 
letters of many well-disposed people of the upper new farms 
(possibly upper Norfolk) in Virginia to the elders in Boston, 
bewailing their sad condition for want of the means of salvation, 
and earnestly entreating a supply of faithful ministers." Who these 
"well-disposed people" were, it is not easy to say. They may have 
been new settlers from England, with Puritan sympathies; they 


may have been old settlers who had grown discontented with the 
existing Establishment, or they may have been a first instalment 
of that southward migration from the New England colonies 
which was to fill up a considerable portion of the southern fron 
tier. Their plea, at any rate, so moved the Boston elders that, 
with the approval of the General Court, they sent two ministers, 
Knowlys and Thompson, to their assistance. These two gentle 
men were, of course, prevented from preaching publicly by the 
Act of 1629, but they may have had some hearing in private 

Whether through their efforts or others', a small Puritan con 
gregation was assembled in Virginia, for in 1648 the colony was 
again heard from in Massachusetts, with the arrival of one Mr. 
Harrison, pastor of the Church at Nanseman. He reported that 
their number had grown to one hundred and eighteen, and that 
many more were looking favorably upon them, so that Governor 
Sir William Berkeley had been moved to persecute them that is, 
to enforce the Act of 1629 and had banished Harrison and his 
elder, Mr. Durand. Harrison desired the advice of the leaders 
at Boston as to whether the Church ought to remove, in view of 
this opposition, and if so, where. He was advised that as they were 
growing and, as, according to his report, many of the Council 
(the upper house in the colonial legislature) were on the point of 
being converted, "they should not be hasty to remove, as long as 
they could stay on any tolerable terms," but that if they did move, 
a good location might be the Bahamas, where liberty of conscience 
was promised. The readiness of this group to move elsewhere 
suggests that, in spite of the alleged interest of the Council mem 
bers, of which there is no other evidence, the Puritans were not 
among those who had great possessions in the colony. 

The time was now at hand, however, when the tables were 

The Puritan temporarily to be reversed and the Puritans were to have their 

Revolution fay o f power in England and even, by force, to gain at least 

nominal control of the government of Virginia, the most loyal 

of the colonies. The attachment of the Virginians to the ruling 

house was shown early in the struggle when they opposed a bill 

introduced in the Long Parliament for the restoration of the 

London Company, which would have interrupted the direct 

authority of the King in the colony. When news of the execution 


o Charles I reached Virginia, Charles II was immediately pro 
claimed as his successor. The colony was not able, however, to 
hold out single-handed against the power of the Commonwealth, 
and when a force was sent over for its subjection, it was felt that 
an honorable surrender was better than a useless struggle. The 
terms of capitulation which were then arranged provided that the 
Book of Common Prayer might continue in use for one year, if 
prayers for the King were not said publicly, and that the settled 
ministers, if they were not guilty of active opposition to the new 
government, might retain their cures and receive their dues for the 
same length of time. Actually, the services of the Church were 
probably carried on without great change throughout the period 
of Puritan rule, though some Separatist congregations may have 
been formed at this time, and there is some evidence that the 
Church had declined before the coming of the Restoration. In 
1653 an act was passed excluding clergymen from the House of 
Burgesses, as the popular house of the Assembly was called, on 
the ground that their presence there might "produce bad conse 
quences/' In 1655 it was reported that many places were destitute 
of ministers and that the people were not paying their accustomed 
dues. In 1657 an act was passed for settling the religious affairs 
of the province, which provided "that to the people of the respec 
tive parishes should be referred all matters touching the church 
wardens and vestry, agreements with their ministers, and, in 
general, such things as concerned the parish or parishioners." 

The vagueness and generality of this act may be accounted for 
by the need which was probably still felt of avoiding any direct Vestries 
opposition to the Puritan power, although its rule was rapidly 
drawing to a close. The law, however, contains the first specific 
reference to the institution of the vestry, which has become such 
a characteristic feature of our Church government in this country, 
though this body had probably existed in Virginia at an even 
earlier date. In a document drawn up in connection with a legal 
dispute in 1718, it is stated that vestries, duly elected by their 
parishes, have, from the earliest times in the colony, had the right 
of presenting their ministers to the governor for induction. The 
institution, in fact, had its origin in the English canoa law of the 
period. In ordinary English use, the term vestry is applied to a 
meeting o the whole parish, which any resident is eligible to 


attend, but by the seventeenth century it had become customary in 
some parishes to transfer the function of the larger assembly to a 
smaller board, known as a "select vestry," which was usually elected 
by the parish meeting but in a few cases was self-perpetuating. It 
was in this form that the vestry was transplanted to the New 
World, partly because it was most common in the parts of Eng 
land from which the early settlers came, and partly because it was 
better suited than the more usual form to the need of large but 
thinly-settled parishes, where the frequent assembling of all the 
residents would have been highly impractical. In colonies where 
there was a large dissenting population, which was sometimes in 
the majority, it had a further advantage in that it was possible to 
require the vestrymen to take the oaths of allegiance and 
supremacy, and thus to exclude dissenters from serving as such. 

With the return of Charles II in 1660, the Church was again in 
The the ascendent in England and some efforts were made to pro- 

Restoration mote its interests in the colonies also. That stout old Royalist, 
Governor Berkeley, returned to Virginia, bringing with him fresh 
instructions, in which the concerns of the Church had a promi 
nent part, for the very first article told him to "be careful Almighty 
God may be duly and daily served, according to the form of 
Religion established in the Church of England." 

In 1662 an act was passed renewing and amplifying the law 
of 1629. It repeated the earlier regulations as to episcopal ordina 
tion, presentation, and induction, but provided further that a 
majority of each parish should choose twelve of the most able 
men to be a vestry, which body, once elected, was to be self- 
perpetuating, and, with the minister, was to have the power of 
electing wardens. Every vestryman was to take the oaths of 
allegiance and supremacy, and to subscribe to the doctrine and 
discipline of the Church of England. 

At the time of the Restoration there were fifty parishes legally 
established in Virginia, though many of them existed on paper 
only. To supply these parishes there were only about ten min 
isters, and the securing of the number needed was one of the 
problems with which the colonial authorities had to deal. To 
encourage the migration of clergymen, a bounty of twenty pounds 
was offered to anyone who would transport a "sufficient minister" 
that is, a minister in good standing of the Church of England 


to the colony. At a later period this amount was paid by royal 
bounty to any clergyman coming to the colonies, and may have 
increased the number who were willing to undertake the journey, 
but at that time the measure had little effect, and the colony was 
to suffer from a serious shortage of ministers throughout the 

The ecclesiastical clauses in the instructions of Lord Culpeper, 
who came over as governor in 1679, though similar in their gen 
eral purport to those given to Governor Berkeley in 1660, and to 
other governors before and after, are interesting as containing a 
clause to the effect that no minister should henceforth be pre 
ferred to any benefice unless he could produce a certificate of his 
conformity from the Bishop of London. This was the first specific 
recognition, in the instructions to the governor of a continental 
colony, of the traditional jurisdiction of London over the planta 
tions. The instructions also direct that the ministers shall be ad 
mitted to their vestries in the direction of Church affairs a right 
that the vestries were sometimes disposed to deny. 

As we have not that wealth of information on the daily life of 
the Church in the seventeenth century which is furnished in the church Life 
eighteenth by the reports of the missionaries to the Society for the in the Seven- 
Propagation of the Gospel, and of the Commissaries and other teenth Centur 5 
ministers to the Bishop of London, it is impossible to describe that l 
life as thoroughly now as we can later. There are many circum 
stances, however, which warrant us in inferring that the organi 
zation of the Church in most parts of Virginia was still some 
what rudimentary. The shortage of ministers has already been 
mentioned, and many of the parishes were probably too thinly 
populated to pay a minister, according to the requirements of the 
law, even if one could have been secured. There is evidence also 
that a considerable number of parishes as yet had no church 
buildings. There was no central ecclesiastical authority in the 
colony, except such as might be exercised by the governor, and so 
individual ministers and parishes were practically independent. 
A law to which reference is made at a later date provided that 
if a parish had no minister, the vestry should choose a godly lay 
man to read the services of the Church on Sundays and holi 
days, and, whether or not this law was already in existence, it is 
very likely that the practice was. 


In the older parishes a certain amount of stability had probably 
In the Older been achieved, and some of the characteristics which were later 
Parishes to distinguish southern colonial churchmanship may have begun 

to develop. The salaries of ministers were most likely paid with 
a fair regularity, though perhaps with some grumbling. Neat 
church buildings, of brick or stone, had doubtless been erected, 
and there may also have been "chapcls-of-ease" in the more 
remote parts of parishes, where services were held once or twice 
a month for the convenience of those who lived there. In the 
regular churches, services would be held every Sunday or holi 
day, and would be as well attended as circumstances permitted, 
for whatever the private or public morals of the colonists may 
have been, the obligation of regular attendance at public worship 
seems to have been felt as strongly in the South as in New Eng 
land. The Holy Communion, however, unless it was celebrated 
more frequently than at a later time, would not be held more 
than three or four times a year. The calibre of the clergy was 
probably higher than at a later period, for their support was not 
yet sufficient to attract those persons without hope of ecclesiastical 
preferment at home who came at a later time to the southern 
colonies in search of comfortable and secure, if not luxurious, liv 
ings, and greatly lowered the standards of the ministry, both as 
to ability and morals. The long immunity from ecclesiastical dis 
cipline, which was the necessary result of early conditions in the 
colony, made the people restless at any suggestion of its re-in 
troduction, and when the first Commissary was appointed by the 
Bishop of London in 1689, he found it expedient not to attempt 
the exercise of any jurisdiction over the laity. 




ROM a colony founded by Churchmen, in which the 
Church was loved and provided for at the very beginning of The Puritans 
settlement and consistently nourished thereafter, we must now 
turn to a plantation settled by those who regarded the Church as 
but insufficiently purged of the errors of Rome, and who came 
to the New World to avoid conforming to the corruptions which 
they believed to exist in her liturgy and government. Although the 
earliest efforts at colonization in New England were made under 
Church auspices, and though some Episcopalian colonies were 
later established in Maine and New Hampshire, the entire sec 
tion eventually came under the control of settlers who belonged 
to one phase or another of the great Puritan movement which 
grew out of the more thoroughly Protestant section of the 
Reformation party in England. In American usage it has been 
customary to distinguish between the Pilgrims or Separatists, who 
settled at Plymouth, and the Puritans who colonized Massachu 
setts Bay and the rest of New England, though some of the latter 
were as thorough-going Separatists as the Pilgrims, but this does 
not agree with the contemporary practice, which was to designate 
the whole movement by the name of Puritan, and it obscures the 
fundamental harmony in religious views which existed between 
the Separatists and the rest of the Puritans. 

There was, however, a theoretical distinction between the two 
sets of colonists, for the Plymouth settlers, who were followers of 
Browne and Barrow and other radical reformers, held that the 
corruption of the Established Church went so deep as to make 
it sinful to hold any communion with it, whereas the more con 
servative Puritans, of which the Massachusetts settlers were exam 
ples, were willing to remain in communion with the Church, 
while in England, provided they themselves were exempted from 



conforming to its corrupt practices. In the homeland this differ 
ence was of some practical importance, for the Puritans, under a 
lenient bishop, might continue fairly comfortably within the 
Church, whereas the Separatists were in all cases compelled to 
withdraw from it. In this country, however, the distinction proved 
largely nominal and after a few years was almost entirely obliter 
ated, for both groups, when freed from the restraints which pre 
vailed at home, found Congregationalism a congenial form of 
Church government, and their common Calvinism produced a 
substantial agreement as to theology. 

It was the Pilgrims, so called, who first made good their settle- 
The Pilgrims ment in New England. Persecuted in the old country, they had 
gone first to Holland and had settled for a time at Leyden, but 
economic difficulties and a fear that their children would cease 
to be Englishmen induced them to seek another refuge. Accord 
ingly, having made an agreement with the London Company 
and obtained the tacit acquiescence, though not the official ap 
proval, of the King, a portion of them sailed for America in a 
ship believed to have been called the Mayflower, in 1620. They 
landed in a region north of the territory of the London Company, 
and so had to come to terms with the Plymouth Company, and, 
as some of them had come from that part of England, they gave 
their colony the name of Plymouth. Its early history was similar 
to that of Virginia, as far as the inevitable hardships and blunders 
of a pioneer settlement were concerned, though there was less 
dissension among the leaders; but in time the difficulties were 
overcome, and the colony prospered. 

They had come to America, not to found a haven of religious 
freedom, but to establish a spiritual commonwealth, or new 
Israel, in which the state should act in close cooperation with a 
Church restored to what they considered its original purity. The 
laws of the colony were to agree as nearly as possible with the 
legal codes of the Old Testament, and the magistrates were to 
secure the Elect, who alone were supposed to form the Church 
membership, from being offended by the noise of the ungodly, or 
of heretics. 

The system thus established, and the similar one shortly to be 
set up in Massachusetts and in other parts of New England 
except Rhode Island, which was always regarded by the Puritans 


as something of a renegade, were destined to function with com 
parative success for a century or more, but their little Zion did Representa- 
not remain altogether undisturbed during that time. The first ch*^*^ 
threat to its peace from the side of the Church of England (other Plymouth 
disturbers do not concern us) occurred in 1623, though it proved 
not to be a very serious one. In that year appeared Robert Gorges, 
son of Sir Ferdinando, who had come over as head of one of his 
father's abortive colonial enterprises, this one being designed for 
Massachusetts Bay. The attempt was short-lived, though a few 
of the settlers may have lingered on to trouble the later Puritans, 
but Gorges had brought with him one William Morell, a clergy 
man of the Established Church, who remained behind for almost 
a year after his principal had returned to England, though he 
performed no ecclesiastical functions during his sojourn. He had 
with him a commission to enforce conformity to the Church of 
England in the colony, but he never produced it, because, as 
Bradford tersely observes, "it would seem he saw it was in vain." 

A more serious problem was presented to the rulers of Plymouth 
by the case of John Lyford, who came over with a group of JohnLyford 
colonists in 1624. He had been sent out by the company which 
represented the colony in England, apparently with the expecta 
tion that he would serve as pastor for the congregation, which at 
that time had no regular minister, their old one having failed to 
come over. Lyford had been episcopally ordained, but he professed 
to be in sympathy with Puritan views. He is said by Bradford 
to have been well received and to have allied himself with the 
local Church, repudiating his former orders. 

In course of time, however, he fell in with John Oldom, the 
leader of a group known as the "particulars," who felt that John Oldom 
the terms upon which they came over had been violated by the 
rulers of the colony, and were, accordingly, disaffected. Though 
their grievances were primarily political, Oldom appears to have 
had some ecclesiastical objections also, or else he developed them 
after coming into contact with Lyford. At any rate, the two of 
them sent letters home attacking the colony and shortly after 
wards endeavored to set up a separate congregation. Oldom was 
expelled from the colony, and eventually went to Connecticut, 
where his murder by the Indians was one of the causes of the 
Pequot War. Lyford expressed repentance and was granted six 


months' grace. As he renewed his attacks upon the colony, how 
ever, he was presently expelled and after various wanderings, 
finally ended his days in Virginia. Serious charges were brought 
against his moral character in the course o the dispute, and he 
certainly proved himself to be of a vacillating temper. It is not 
clear how far his dispute with the Plymouth authorities arose 
from a regard for episcopacy, and how far it was due to other 
causes, but he seems to have performed ministerial functions for 
a time, after separating from the regular congregation, on the 
strength of his episcopal ordination. 

The charges which he brought against the ecclesiastical arrange 
ments of the colony were in the nature of a caricature of the 
Separatist position, and contained at least enough truth to be 
embarrassing to those who were the subject of them. Though 
they did their author himself no good, they were one of the causes 
of the break-up of the Pilgrim Company in England, an event 
which, while it did no permanent harm, caused some uneasiness 
to the Pilgrims at the time. An ironical note is imparted to the 
dispute at its close by the fact that one of the charges brought 
against the colonists by those who withdrew from the Company 
was that they had received into their Church a man "that in his 
confession renounced all universal, national, and diocesan 
churches." According to Bradford, this man was Lyford himself! 
The most famous representative of the Church in early New 
Morton of England was Thomas Morton of Merrymount, but, as in the case 
Merrymount o Lyford, it is impossible to say how far his sufferings were due 
to his attachment to her, and how far to other causes. The circum 
stances surrounding his first coming to the New World are uncer 
tain, but we know that about 1624 he was located at a .place which 
he called Merrymount, in the neighborhood of Plymouth, with 
a colony which can probably best be described as a trading post, 
and that his presence there was highly unwelcome to the Puritans. 
He and his associates carried on a profitable fur trade, and scan 
dalized their neighbors by their use of the Prayer Book and the 
free manner of their living. They were also suspected of selling 
firearms to the Indians, a charge which, whether true or not 
and it is a fairly plausible one certainly alarmed the other settlers, 
and appears to have been the immediate occasion for Morton's 
expulsion. He was arrested in 1628 by the Pilgrim captain, Miles 


Standish, at the request of some of the smaller settlements, and, 
after being brought to Plymouth, was dispatched in the next ship 
for England. 

As Merrymount was outside the jurisdiction of Plymouth, this 
action was clearly illegal, and it is not surprising that Morton 
was promptly released upon his arrival in England. He returned 
to Plymouth a year later under the protection of Isaac Allerton, a 
Puritan, and was lodged for a time at the latter's house. When 
the authorities forced Allerton to expel him, he went again to 
Merrymount. He was not there long, however, before the Pil 
grims once more found cause to lay hands on him and send him 
back to England, where he produced a burlesque on Puritanism 
which he called The New English Canaan. In 1633 he joined with 
some malcontents from Massachusetts Bay in signing a petition 
against that colony. 

In spite of these attacks upon it, he seems to have felt an attrac 
tion toward New England which was but coldly reciprocated, for ^ f eturn of 
in 1643, when an old man, he again appeared in Plymouth. He 
was allowed to spend the winter there unmolested, but, rashly 
venturing within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts Bay, was 
promptly arrested for having attacked the colony in England, an 
action which was obviously as illegal as his previous arrests had 
been. He was held in jail for about a year, but as he proved to be 
a charge upon the colony, and common humanity forbade sub 
jecting a man of his age to corporal punishment, he was released, 
ostensibly that he might have an opportunity to raise the money 
for his fine, but really to give him an opportunity to get out of 
the colony. This he did, seeking refuge in one of the settlements 
in Maine which had not yet been subjugated by Massachusetts, 
where he died a few years later. 

Morton's is one of the most hotly debated characters in Amer 
ican history, and the present writer does not feel called upon to 
settle the question. Though he was a member of the Church of 
England, it is evident that the dispute between Morton and his 
enemies involved more questions than the difference between 
episcopacy and Congregationalism. It was, in miniature, the dis 
pute of the age between Puritan and Cavalier, between the stern 
and sometimes harsh, but always vigorous, morality of the middle 
class, beginning its long struggle upward, and the freer, more 


generous, but probably weaker standards of the class in power, 
and of its hangers-on. In such a conflict right can hardly be ex 
pected to be all on one side, and to become entirely a partisan 
either of Morton or his opponents would seem to show an inade 
quate understanding of the issues involved. 

As has already been intimated, the other early settlers in the 
The Salem region that was to become Massachusetts were Puritans of a more 
Colony conservative stamp than those of Plymouth. The colonists at 

Salem seem, in this respect, to have stood somewhere between the 
Pilgrims and the settlers at Boston. They were not Separatists 
before their coming over, and they repudiated the name even 
after their arrival, but their proceedings did not agree very well 
with this repudiation. On July 20, 1629, they set apart a day of 
fasting for the choice of ministers, and two men who had been 
clergymen in England were questioned concerning their calling. 
These men proceeded to deny their former orders by declaring 
that the calling of a minister was a twofold one: inwardly from 
the Lord, and outwardly from the congregation. This profession 
proved satisfactory and the two who made it were chosen pastors 
of the church at Salem. 

There were some in the colony, however, to whom this action 
proved unacceptable. Chief among these were the brothers Browne, 
one a lawyer and the other a merchant, who were two of the 
original patentees and men of consequence in the colony. They 
withdrew, with some others, from the rest of the congregation, 
and set up a separate meeting in which the Book of Common 
Prayer was used. They also went to Endicott, the leader of the 
colony, and charged the ministers with departing from the Church 
of England, declaring that these were Separatists, and would 
probably become Anabaptists, but that, for themselves, they would 
adhere to the old Church. The reply of the ministers to this 
declaration is characteristic of one phase of the Puritan point of 
view. They denied that they were either Separatists or Anabap 
tists (this latter charge, of course, was purely rhetorical, the word 
Anabaptist having somewhat the same damning power then that 
Communist has today), and asserted that they had not separated 
from the Church of England, but only from its corruptions, and 
that having been persecuted in the Old World for their non 
conformity to the Prayer Book and ceremonies of the Church, 


they neither could nor would use them here, where they had their 
freedom, as they considered the imposition of them to be a cor 
ruption of God's word. At the first Court of Assistants, which met 
in 1629, the stand of the ministers was approved, and the Brownes 
were sent home. 

The Boston Puritans moved more cautiously toward Congre 
gationalism, but the tendency of their movement was the same, The Settle- 
and in the end they all arrived at the same place. The first Puritan 
settlers on the site of what was to become the metropolis of New 
England came over in 1629, but a much larger number arrived 
the next year, bringing with them John Winthrop, who for many 
years was to guide the destinies of the colony as governor, and 
was to become its first historian. Before leaving England, these 
colonists set forth an address to "the rest of their brethren in and 
of the Church of England" in which they said, "We desire you 
... to take notice of the principals and body of our company, as 
those who estimate it our honor to call the Church of England, 
from whence we rise, our dear Mother . . . ever acknowledging 
that such hope and part as we have obtained in the common salva 
tion, we have received in her bosom, and suckt it from her 
breasts; we leave it not, therefore, as loathing that milk where 
with we were nourished there, but, blessing God for the parentage 
and education, as members of the same body, shall always rejoice 
in her good, and unfeignedly grieve for any sorrow that shall ever 
betide her, and while we have breath, sincerely desire and en 
deavor the continuance and abundance of her welfare." 

This document was in the nature of a farewell speech, and 
should be judged by the standards usually governing such pro 
ductions. It probably said nothing that was not sincerely meant, 
but it left unsaid a number of things which might have marred 
the good-will that ought to prevail at a parting. Out of respect 
for the occasion, it was not thought necessary to specify that the 
signers of this address regarded their Mother as retaining about 
her person far too many of the corruptions of a supposedly less 
reputable woman with whom she had once been associated, or 
that, while they were willing to accept her orders as being as 
good as any other, the majority of them by no means regarded 
them as necessary to a valid administration of the sacraments, or 
that they were looking forward hopefully to the time when they 



Election of 

The "Old 


would be no longer bound by her liturgy. Even so, however, it is 
not likely that Winthrop and his associates would have spoken 
quite so strongly had they foreseen how rapidly they were to 
progress toward separation once they had arrived in their new 

On July 27, 1630, the Boston congregation kept a fast for the 
choosing of ministers, as the group at Salem had done a year 
earlier, and selected John Wilson to be teacher, Increase Nowell 
to be elder, and two others to be deacons. These four were set 
apart for their duties in a service in which the congregation laid 
its hands upon them. This was done with a general protestation 
"that it was only as a sign of election and confirmation, not of 
any intent that Mr. Wilson should renounce his ministry he had 
received in England," but, nevertheless, the breach with the 
Mother Church was for all practical purposes complete. It is true, 
that the Bostonians still regarded themselves as being in com 
munion with their fellow-Puritans in the Church of England, and 
that one of their original objections to Roger Williams was that he 
held such communion to be unlawful, but they had chosen for 
themselves the "Independent" or Congregational form of church 
government, and they soon proved as unwilling to tolerate any 
other system as were the avowed Separatists of Plymouth. In 1633, 
when Williams and another minister objected to the holding of 
ministerial conferences, on the ground that they might lead to 
"presbytery or superintendency," Winthrop observed that their 
fears were groundless, as it was agreed by all "that no church or 
person can have power over another church," and though Endicott 
was subjected to some criticism in 1635 for having cut the cross 
out of the English flag at Salem, another year saw this symbol 
removed from the flags of all of the militia companies. 

The Puritans were not the first to settle in the neighborhood of 
Boston, for when they arrived they found there a few scattered 
settlers, possibly survivors of Gorges' abortive colony, to whom 
they gave the name of "old planters." These men were, for the 
most part, unsympathetic with Puritanism, and two of them, 
Thomas Walford and Samuel Maverick, were staunch adherents 
of the Church of England. Walford seems to have offended the 
Puritans, probably by too great a freedom in expressing his views, 
and was fined forty shillings and banished from the colony, going 


to New Hampshire, where he became one of the first wardens of 
the Church at Strawberry Bank (later Portsmouth), but Maverick, 
together with William Blaxton, the remaining "old planter," was 
admitted "freeman" of the colony that is, accorded civil rights 
in 1631. Maverick is praised, even by Puritan writers, for his gen 
erous hospitality and his kindness to the Indians, whom he tended 
during an epidemic of smallpox, but he was distrusted for his 
opinions and he was forbidden to hold office, required to reside 
at Boston, and prohibited from entertaining strangers for more 
than one night, it apparently being feared that he would use his 
hospitality as a cloak for proselytism. In 1632 he was granted a 
tract of land in Maine by Gorges' Council for New England, but, 
in spite of the restraints upon him, he seems to have preferred 
living at Boston. 

Blaxton, the third of these settlers, had built his cabin on the 
actual site of Boston, and claimed the whole peninsula on the 
strength of this occupation, a claim which the Puritans respected 
to the extent of setting apart fifty acres for his use. He was an 
ordained clergyman of the Church of England, but he had as 
little regard for prelates as for Puritans, and told his new neigh 
bors that he had come from England because he did not like the 
Lord-Bishops, and was equally unwilling to join himself with 
them and be subject to the "Lord-Brethren." He remained at Bos 
ton, however, and kept on fairly good terms with the colonists 
until 1635, when he sold his property to the province and moved 
into the region which is now Rhode Island, of which colony he 
became the first settler. In his later years he is said to have made 
some efforts to exercise his ministry at Providence, though he had 
to bribe children with fruit to get them to listen to him. When 
he died he left a library of two hundred volumes a large collec 
tion for that time and place. 

The "old planters" were not the only ones to whom the Puri 
tans seemed to be moving too far from the Church of England, Objectors 
for there were some from among their own number who thought ^ m ? ng 
the same thing. The story of the Browne brothers has already been 
told. Another of the Salem Church who disliked the new order of 
things was the Reverend Francis Bright, one of four ministers 
sent over by the Massachusetts Company, who, when he felt that 
the separation had gone too far at Salem, moved to Charlestown, 


and finding similar tendencies there, returned to England. Others 
followed his example, and it has been estimated that a total of 
nearly a hundred colonists returned home rather than accept Inde 
pendency. It is also probable that there were always some persons 
within the colony who would have preferred the ministrations of 
the Church, though they were too much in the minority to make 
it expedient for them to speak out under ordinary circumstances. 
During the period of the Commonwealth, some of them united 
with representatives of Presbyterianism to petition the home gov 
ernment for religious toleration, and were fined by the Massachu 
setts authorities for their temerity. 

At the time of the first settlement of Plymouth, the King had 
Efforts to agreed to "connive" with the designs of the Pilgrims, but had 
Subject the refused to give them any formal sanction, and the Stuart mon- 
the Church archs had never pledged themselves to respect the ecclesiastical 
independence of New England. They felt free, therefore, to try to 
reduce the Puritan colonies to conformity whenever a fitting occa 
sion should offer, and various schemes for accomplishing this end 
were devised by them from time to time. The ineffective authority 
given to William Morell when he came over with Robert Gorges 
has already been mentioned. In 1634 a commission was issued to 
transfer the government of New England to the Archbishop of 
Canterbury, the Bishop of London, and others, with power to 
regulate the ecclesiastical and civil affairs of the colonies, inflict 
penalties, and send the refractory home to England. This commis 
sion was, in due time, transmitted to Boston, but nothing was 
done about it. Other attempts of a similar sort were made before 
the attention of the King became too absorbed in the approaching 
revolution to permit his concerning himself with affairs across 
the seas, but none of them got beyond being put on paper, and 
the Puritans were left tolerably free to regulate their own con 
cerns until after the rise and fall of the Commonwealth. 

With the Restoration of the House of Stuart, a more determined 
attempt was made to reduce New England to political and ecclesi 
astical obedience. As a Puritan colony, Massachusetts was natu 
rally suspected in the eyes of the Restoration government, but it 
did its best to remove the suspicion by sending a loyal address to 
the King as soon as it learned of his accession to the throne. To 
this Charles replied in 1662, expressing gratification at the loyalty 


of the colony, and promising to restore its charter. He observed, 
however, that the foundation of the charter was freedom of con 
science, and so he required that the General Court should permit 
all who wished to do so to make use of the Book of Common 
Prayer and to perform their devotions after the manner of the 
Church of England, and that all persons of good character should 
be admitted to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, celebrated 
according to the usage of the Prayer Book, and their children to 
baptism. This order was not, however, to be understood as imply 
ing that any indulgence should be granted to "those persons com 
monly called Quakers." 

In 1664 Charles dispatched a group of Commissioners for the 
purpose of reducing the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam, and Commis- 
settling the affairs of New England. Among them was Samuel NevvEiMa 
Maverick, whom we have already met as one of the "old planters'* 
at Boston. The Commissioners, or those of them who went about 
that business, were successful in subjugating the Dutch, but to 
tame the spirit of the Puritans proved a more difficult matter. 
They did succeed in getting a law passed which nominally ex 
tended the vote to all good, religious persons, but to obtain a 
sanction for the use of the Prayer Book was more than they 
could compass. 

Charles did not give up at this single defeat. Time and again, 
through the agency of Edward Randolph, the collector of cus 
toms, and others, he ordered the Massachusetts authorities to per 
mit the services of the Church, and in the end he even included 
in his demands the toleration of the Quakers, but as long as the 
province retained its independent government, his commands 
were unheeded, or received but a nominal obedience. Either the 
Puritans did not realize their danger, or they felt it not worth 
while to preserve their political independence if they could not 
use it to regulate their own religious affairs. At any rate, they 
refused to yield as long as they were able to resist and the free 
dom of the colony had to be restricted before the freedom of the 
Church could be obtained. 

This, however, did not take place until near the close of Charles 
IFs reign, and it remained for his brother and successor, the Attack on the 
unlucky James II, to carry out the measures that he had begun. 
Charles, who was always in need of money, had, in his later years 


hit upon an interesting expedient for raising it. He had discov 
ered, or it had been discovered for him, that many of the oldest 
cities in England had charters that were technically defective, 
and accordingly these cities had been compelled, by quo warranto 
proceedings, to surrender their charters, receiving them back only 
after making a substantial money payment, and even then usually 
on terms more favorable to the King than had formerly been the 

This measure could, it was obvious, be extended with equal 
facility to the colonies, for it was easy to find technical flaws in 
their charters, though here the object was not so much the im 
provement of the royal finances as the unifying of colonial 
government. Action was accordingly begun against the New Eng 
land provinces, and in due time their charters were declared for 
feit, and preparations were made to unite them with New York 
under a single governor, who was to be located at Boston, and to 
rule the other colonies through deputies. This plan was not with 
out its statesmanlike qualities, for though it crushed the indepen 
dence in which, as it now seems to us, the true strength of the 
colonies lay, it would have united all of the northern provinces 
under one head, and have greatly increased their outward strength 
and the efficiency of their government, in addition to enhancing 
greatly the royal power, which was, of course, the chief object of 
its promoters. It might, moreover, have been successfully carried 
through, in spite of its unpopularity with the colonists, had James 
not succeeded, before he had ruled for more than three years, in 
blundering himself off the throne altogether. 

Even as it was, the scheme was put into partial effect during 
The Church James's reign, and in the spring of 1686, Joseph Dudley, a resi- 
Comcs to dent of Massachusetts, was commissioned "President" of the 
Boston colonies of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine and New 

York. The appointment of a royal governor in Massachusetts 
for such Dudley, in effect, was, though the title was first accorded 
to his successor, Andros necessarily entailed the introduction of 
the Established Church, and the ship that bore Dudley's commis 
sion also carried Robert Ratcliffe, an ordained clergyman, who was 
to become the first minister of the "King's Chapel" in Boston. 

The Sunday after his arrival Ratcliffe preached in the town 
house of Boston, and read the services of the Church, arrayed in 


the surplice which was the uniform of his calling. This was a 
startling event indeed, and, though it can hardly have been a 
welcome one, a large crowd of people had the curiosity to come 
and witness the spectacle. They found Ratcliffe, if we may rely 
upon the testimony of one of them, "a very excellent preacher, 
whose matter was good, and the dress in which he put it, extraor 
dinary." The following Tuesday he married two couples. Ran 
dolph, whose sometimes intemperate zeal for Church and Crown 
was to make him one of the worst-hated men in Massachusetts 
history, desired to have Ratcliffe assist at the inauguration of the 
President and Council, but Dudley, though he had conformed to 
the Church, was too politic to permit this, nor was Randolph more 
successful in an effort which he made to obtain one of the three 
churches in Boston for Ratcliffe's use. All that would be granted 
by the Council was the privilege of using the room in the town 
house where the deputies had been accustomed to sit, and here 
the services of the Church were regularly held for several months. 

On June 15, 1686, the parish was formally organized, Dr. Ben 
jamin Bullivant and Mr. Richard Bankes were elected wardens, Organization 
a sexton was chosen, and some church furnishings were ordered. ha Kl ^ s ' s 
At a subsequent meeting, Ratcliffe's salary was fixed at fifty pounds ape 
a year, in addition to anything the Council might settle upon him. 
This latter source of income, however, proved fruitless, for though 
Randolph was lavish of schemes for supporting the Church by 
taxation, none of them was approved by the government. Had 
any one of them been adopted, it might have stirred the already 
restive colonists to revolt, for evidences were daily given of how 
cordially the Church was hated. Ministers in their pulpits de 
nounced her services in the strong terms which were characteristic 
of seventeenth-century religious controversy, and the harmless Rat 
cliffe was branded a priest of Baal. Merchants and artisans who 
wished to associate themselves with the Church were, if we may 
rely upon Randolph's testimony, coerced by their creditors and 
employers into staying away. 

Near the end of 1686 Dudley was succeeded by Sir Edmund 
Andros, who was appointed the first royal governor of Massachu- Sir Edmund 
setts. Andros, who had served acceptably as governor of New Andros 
York and who was to become governor of Virginia after the 
accession of William III, is an important figure in the history of 


the American colonies and o the Episcopal Church. The task 
which he had to perform in New England was one which was 
bound to make him unpopular, and his character was not such 
as to soften the ill feeling in any way. His manner was arrogant 
and cold, and his methods of ruling were arbitrary, but he seems, 
nevertheless, to have been a conscientious public servant, seeking 
to promote the interests of his royal master more earnestly than 
did many of his class. He had no sooner been made governor 
than he demanded the use of one of the Boston meeting-houses for 
the services of the Church. This was refused after a conference 
of ministers had been held to consider it, and for a time Andros 
contented himself with going to church in the town house. In 
the spring of 1687 he became more insistent, however. On Good 
Friday he forced his way into Old South Church, and beginning 
at Easter, the service of the Church of England was held in that 
building every Sunday, between the morning and afternoon 
services of the regular congregation. Such an arrangement is 
likely to lead to friction even when it is voluntary on both sides, 
and since, in this case, it had been forced on the proprietors of 
the meeting-house by arbitrary authority, conflict was inevitable. 
Sometimes, the long sermon of the Church of England preacher 
would force the Puritans to wait beyond the appointed time for 
their second service, and at other times, the governor would be 
annoyed at having to wait for his service because that of the 
Puritans had been too long. Nevertheless, the joint use of the 
old church continued, with nothing worse than bickering as the 
result, until the small wooden structure of King's Chapel was ready 
for occupancy. 

A "brief" authorizing collections for the building of this chapel 
Building the was issued early in 1688, and nearly one hundred persons con- 
Chapel tributed ^256.9s, to which Andros added ^30 and his deputy in 
New York, Sir Francis Nicholson, who, whatever his faults in 
other respects, was a consistent patron of the Church, added ^25. 
Some difficulty was experienced in procuring a site, for Puritan 
landholders were reluctant to sell to the Church, but at length 
the parish was able to obtain a corner of the old burying-ground, 
probably through the authority of the Council, which Andros was 
able to dominate, and there the foundation was laid on October 
16, 1688. 

From an old cut in ''Annals of King's Chapel," by W. W. Foote, 1882. 


The building, however, was not fully completed before news 
reached the colony of the landing of the Prince of Orange in 
England in the spring of 1689. This report, which was first brought 
to the province by John Winslow, was the signal for a local revo 
lution. Andros, Randolph, and a number of other officers of the 
royal government, most of them Churchmen, were thrown into 
prison, while excited mobs, encouraged by their pastors, rioted in 
the streets. Some property of Churchmen and others was de 
stroyed and the new church was much damaged by stones and 
other instruments of popular violence, the feeling against the 
Establishment having been stimulated by a treatise on The Unlaw 
fulness of the Common Prayer Worship, for whose publication 
Increase Mather regarded the present as a propitious moment. 
For a time it was feared that the building would be destroyed, but 
it survived the popular excitement, and the foothold of the Church 
in Massachusetts which it represented was retained. 

The first successful settlements in Maine and New Hampshire 
were made by Churchmen, and the Church was present in them, The Church 

though its life was soon snuffed out by the spread of Puritan J New 

& , . i -I 11 i T Hampshire 

power, and it was not revived until well into the new century. In 

1622 Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Captain John Mason received a 
grant of all land between the Merrimac and Sagadahoc rivers, 
extending inland to the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence. To 
this area they gave the classical name of Laconia, and within it ? in 
1623, they established a settlement and fishing village at the mouth 
of the Piscataqua. Other small settlements followed in the same 
region, and in 1629 they combined for mutual protection. Mason, 
who at his death in 1638 left a bequest of one thousand acres for 
the maintenance of a preacher, was a zealous Churchman, and it 
is believed that the colony was furnished with a clergyman, though 
the evidence for this is not very strong. In 1640 a parish was or 
ganized at the principal settlement, Strawberry Bank (later Ports 
mouth), with Thomas Walford, who has already been mentioned 
as one of the "old planters" in Massachusetts Bay, and Henry Sher- 
burne as wardens, and a grant of fifty acres for a glebe was made 
to it by the governor. A church and parsonage were also built, the 
necessary furnishings for the former having been previously sent 
over by Mason. The church was served for a time by the Reverend 
Richard Gibson who, according to Winthrop, had originally been 



sent over to minister to some fishermen on Richman's Island. In 
1642, however, he went to the Isle of Shoals, where he got into a 
dispute with a Puritan minister, and was hailed before the Massa 
chusetts General Court, which claimed jurisdiction over the is 
land. They released him only on his expressing great repentance, 
and declaring his intention to return immediately to England. 
After his departure, the Church in New Hampshire rapidly suc 
cumbed to Puritan inroads. 

Gorges' interests were not confined to New Hampshire, how- 
Church ever, and in 1636 he established the first organized government in 
* Maine at Winter Harbor on the Saco River. This was within the 
territory included in the grant which he held in common with 
Mason, but he seems to have acted under a separate royal grant, 
which, like the provincial charter which he obtained in 1639, 
provided for the Establishment of the Church of England. To this 
colony and to the other settlements of Scarboro and Casco (now 
Portland) which were presently established in the same region, 
came the Reverend Robert Jordan, a minister of the Church of 
England, who probably arrived about 1640. His marriage to the 
daughter of John Winter, a well-to-do settler, made him one of 
the leading landholders of the region, and he became a leader in 
the unsuccessful resistance to the aggression of Massachusetts. 
After the authority of that colony had been established, he was 
occasionally prosecuted for performing the services of the Church, 
but he continued in tolerable prosperity until the destruction of 
his home by Indians in King Philip's War forced him to flee to 
Great Island, where he died in 1679. 

As has already been stated, one of the objects of the Commission- 
Beginnings in ers sent over in 1664 was the conquest of the Dutch colony of 
New Amsterdam, and this conquest was carried through, without 
bloodshed, by Colonel Richard Nicolls. One of the terms of capitu 
lation provided that the Dutch should have freedom of conscience 
in matters of religion, and this meant that the Calvinistic Dutch 
Church should remain the Church of the colony until English set 
tlers began to predominate. The English governor and the English 
garrison had to have a chaplain, however, and, as the only place of 
worship in the colony was the Dutch church within the fort, the 
terms of surrender also provided that the English might have the 
use of this church after the Dutch had finished their service. This 

New York 


arrangement was carried out much more amicably than the similar 
one in Massachusetts, for the relations of the Church of England 
with the continental Protestants were, at this time, upon a much 
more cordial basis than those with the English dissenters. The gov 
ernor's chaplain continued to be the only minister of the Church 
of England in New York, as the colony was now called, until after 
the "Glorious" Revolution of 1689, and the Dutch church in the 
fort continued to be its only place of worship. There was also an 
episcopally ordained minister at Albany, in the person of Nicolaus 
Van Rensselaer, a son of the patroon, but though he had been 
ordained by the Bishop of Salisbury, he functioned in the colony as 
a minister of the Dutch Church, and adhered to its usages. His 
manner of life, moreover, does not seem to have been such as 
became a clergyman, and he was deposed by Andros in 1677 one 
of the few instances of the exercise of this episcopal function by a 
colonial governor. 

The accession of William III was marked by a minor revolution 
in New York, as it had been in Massachusetts. Here a German, 
Jacob Leisler, raised a force of irregulars and expelled Andros' 
deputy, Sir Francis Nicholson, a proceeding for which he was 
hung by that gentleman's successor. Though Leisler, in his wrath 
against all the Jacobean officers, accused Alexander Innes, the 
chaplain, of being a Papist, the Church had no real concern in 
the conflict, except that the dispute between Leislerians and and- 
Leislerians, which was to mark - New York politics for some 
years to come, occasionally exerted an indirect influence upon 
ecclesiastical affairs. 

Maryland resembled Massachusetts and Plymouth in that it 
was founded as a refuge for a religious group which was hostile The Founding 
to the Established Church, but it differed from them in being f Maryland 
founded with a view to the toleration of all Trinitarian Christians. 
Whether or not its founder, Lord Baltimore, believed in religious 
freedom as a principle, such an arrangement was a matter of prac 
tical necessity in his colony. The charter of the province required 
that its laws should not be inconsistent with those of England, and 
to tolerate Roman Catholics in the colony, and appoint them to 
positions of trust, was as far as it was expedient to go in disregard 
ing this clause. That much relaxation had been anticipated, but to 
go beyond it, and interfere with the freedom of Protestants in the 


colony, would almost certainly have invited an attack upon the 
charter, for Baltimore, who remained in England, and was a well- 
known figure at court, could not hope for the immunity which 
distance and obscurity lent to the Puritans in their early years. 
Moreover, the Roman Catholics as a whole were a much weaker 
party in England than the Puritans, and much more subject to 
popular distrust. And finally, as it soon became evident that not 
many Roman Catholics wished to migrate to the New World, it 
was clear that a majority of the colonists would always be 

Whatever Lord Baltimore's motives may have been for under 
taking this experiment in religious freedom, he and his principal 
agents were thoroughly conscientious in their efforts to carry it 
out. Not only were all orthodox Christians tolerated, but an ef 
fort was made, even in the earliest instructions, to keep peace 
by forbidding the use of abusive expressions in connection with 
things held sacred by either Protestants or Roman Catholics, and 
there are a number of instances on record in which the colonial 
authorities heard and redressed complaints of the "Protestant 
Catholics" of the Church of England against their Roman Cath 
olic neighbors. 

In 1649, in an effort to prevent the abrogation of his charter by 
the Puritan power in England, Baltimore had the colonial Assem 
bly give legislative expression to his ideas in the famous Maryland 
Toleration Act, but the principles which were embodied in that 
law were those which had governed the colony from the begin 
ning. The efforts to save the charter were unsuccessful, and during 
the period of the Commonwealth, Maryland was under Protestant 

It is probable that many, if not a majority, even of the first col- 
The church onists, who came over in 1634, were Protestants, and at least nom- 
m Maryland j na i me mbers of the Church of England, and there was already a 
settlement of Virginia Churchmen, with a minister, on the Isle of 
Kent, which was eventually adjudged to be included in the Mary 
land patent. The Churchmen who came over from England had 
no minister with them, but they did build a chapel at St. Mary's, 
the first settlement, and they seem to have read services there with 
some regularity. The first minister of the Established Church who 
is known to have been in the colony is the Reverend William 


Wilkinson, who was there about 1650, but though he occasionally 
officiated, he was obliged to engage in trade for his support. In 
1675 there were three clergymen in the colony. In the follow 
ing year one of them, John Yeo, addressed a petition to Archbishop 
Sheldon in which he lamented the poor condition of the Church 
in Maryland, and said that though there was such a scanty supply 
of regular ministers for a population which now numbered twenty 
thousand souls, scattered through ten or twelve counties, there 
were many irregular preachers, and the Quakers had seen to the 
provision of "speakers" for their conventicles, not to mention the 
numerous Roman Catholic priests in the colony. He prayed, there 
fore, that some arrangement might be made for the establishment 
of the Church in Maryland. 

This letter was referred to the Privy Council in England, and 
the then Lord Baltimore was questioned on the subject. He replied 
that in view of the heterogeneous character of the legislature, 
which included Roman Catholics, Independents, Quakers, and 
Churchmen, nothing could be done towards an establishment, but 
that the clergymen then in the colony (he put their number at 
four) were all provided with adequate plantations. During the 
remaining years of Stuart rule there was very little change in the 
ecclesiastical situation of the colony. The Protestants were already 
well in the majority, and their preponderance increased every 
year. Ministers were sent over from time to time, but as others 
died or were removed, the total number was not increased, and in 
1689 there were still only three ministers of the Church in 

The change of dynasties in England brought a new order of 
things in the colony also. When they learned of the succession of 
William, the Protestants revolted against the Proprietor, and peti- dency 
tioned the King, in two successive conventions, to end the pro 
prietary government. The petition was finally granted. The colony 
passed under the control of a Protestant Assembly and a royal 
governor, and the experiment in religious freedom was at an 
end. In time the province was restored to the Calverts, but not 
until the family of Lord Baltimore had itself become Protestant. 



'HEN does a century begin ? In the mind of the average per 
son it begins with the year a new figure appears in the hundreds 
column, with a double naught following it. An expert in chronol 
ogy would probably choose the year following, for only then has 
the tale of the preceding century been completely filled. For the 
historian, however, no such simple rule of division is possible. He 
can recognize in any given century certain predominant character 
istics distinguishing it from other centuries, just as he can in any 
other long period of time, but to fix the point at which those 
characteristics begin their ascendency is by no means an easy 
matter, and the date chosen must always be an arbitrary one. 

The division between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 
Characteristics can be most conveniently fixed, at least in English and American 
of the New history, by the "Glorious" Revolution of 1689. To be sure, the 
entury change which that Revolution effected was not, outwardly, a very 

radical one, being merely a shifting of dynasties, but as its embodi 
ments guaranteed the Protestant succession, and secured the su 
premacy of Parliament, it may be said to have brought one long 
controversy to a close and set the stage for another. From it also 
evolved a noticeable shift in social forces, for the uneasy com 
promise between the aristocracy and the upper middle-class which 
resulted from it in the political field was to have its counterpart 
in the social ideals of the century. The slow-burning but torrid 
fires of Puritanism were to give way to a stolid middle-class re 
spectability which stressed the importance of becoming conduct 
for its own sake, rather than as a means of escaping damnation. 
The aristocratic ideal, already decadent during the Restoration, 
was to express itself chiefly in an insistence upon the importance 
of subordination and stability in society, and, on its lighter side, 
in the formulation of rules for pleasing fashionable ladies. These 



two elements, moreover, were to exist not so much in competition 
as in a state of incomplete fusion, gradually solidifying, with the 
addition of new forces introduced by the Methodist Revival and 
the Romantic Movement, into that curiously powerful synthesis 
of aristocratic and middle-class traditions which was to mark the 
England of Victoria. 

With all things thus in a state of flux, religion, naturally, could 
not remain unchanged, and the claims of Christianity were sub 
jected to a searching and not altogether favorable examination. It 
was, of course, still considered illegal, and, what was worse, bad 
taste, to repudiate Christianity altogether, but to advance its super 
natural claims too boldly or to insist too strongly on its authority 
over human lives was regarded as an even more serious breach of 
propriety. Among those who felt themselves to be most enlight 
ened, it was regarded simply as a philosophy of life to which 
certain supernatural fables had been attached, and which should 
be purged from these superstitions and required to justify itself, 
like all other philosophies, on grounds of cold rationality. Most 
of these "enlightened" philosophers, indeed, sincerely believed 
such a plan entirely practical, but their attitude, none the less, 
tended to deprive the Faith of much of its vitality. There were, of 
course, many good and many devout men in the Church and in 
its ministry in the eighteenth century, but, if they wished to be 
heard at all, at least by the educated, they were obliged to express 
themselves in the language of the time; to talk more of good 
ness than of holiness, and more of the rationality of Christianity 
than of its divine revelation. 

In the colonies the situation prevailing in England was repro 
duced with such modifications as would naturally result from the Religion in the 
cruder conditions of colonial culture. There was little genuine Colonies 
aristocracy in America, but there were plenty of aristocratic pre 
tensions, and these combined with the genuine middle-class 
background of most of the more prosperous colonists to produce 
a sort of caricature of English society, with the governor and 
his circle acting as a miniature court. In religion the restless 
ness of the age showed itself differently here than it did in Eng 
land. Though we find occasional references to the importation of 
Deistic or infidel books, there was probably little avowed ration 
alism in the country until toward the close of the century, but 


there was in all of the colonies a general* breakdown of the "stand 
ing order," whether that order was Episcopal, Independent, or 
Quaker. Dissent appeared everywhere, some sort of religious tol 
eration gradually developed in every province, and the older re 
ligious denominations joined with two or three new ones in a 
struggle for position which, though it was temporarily interrupted 
by the political excitement of the Revolutionary period, was not to 
end until the second quarter of the nineteenth century saw their 
ratios fixed upon a national rather than a sectional basis. 

Had this struggle taken place at a time when religious feeling 
in England was stronger, the Episcopal Church would possibly 
have fared better than it did, for it would have enjoyed a more 
earnest support from its English friends. As it was, that support 
cannot be said to have been much more than lukewarm. The 
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts la 
bored, it is true, long and devotedly for the welfare of the colonial 
Church, but its active supporters never represented more than a 
small fraction of the membership of the Church at home. By the 
majority of English Churchmen and this included most of the 
ecclesiastics the spiritual welfare of the colonies was regarded as 
somebody else's business. They did nothing to promote the work 
of the Church in America, and they allowed political considera 
tions to prevent the government, which was supposed to be the 
Church's protector, from permitting the completion of its ministry 
by a colonial episcopate. 

The policy of the government with respect to the ecclesiastical 
Policy of the affairs of the plantations, insofar as it can be said to have had one, 
Government was to o b ta i n ^ Establishment of the Church in all colonies which 
had not been founded by persons avowedly seeking to escape from 
the Establishment at home, and to procure its toleration in colonies 
where the dissenting interest prevailed. After the accession of Wil 
liam III, no effort was ever made by the home government to 
force the Church Establishment upon the dissenting colonies. It 
is true that an Act of Establishment was passed in Maryland at the 
beginning of this period, but, though the measure was encouraged 
by Governors Nicholson and Blakiston, and by Commissary Bray, 
it had its origin in colonial conditions, for, as we have seen, a 
Protestant revolution in Maryland followed the fall of the Stuarts 
in England. The act which was passed by the colonial Assembly 


to provide for the Church was, In fact, disallowed several times 
before it was put in a form acceptable to the English government, 
and at least one of the objections brought against it, in its earlier 
form, was that it extended insufficient toleration to dissenting 
groups. Moreover, the interest displaced by the Maryland Estab 
lishment was that of the Roman Catholics who were not included 
in the general toleration which the new regime extended toward 
Protestant dissenters. 

This policy, had it been consistently adhered to, would probably, 
except for its failure to provide for the episcopate, have been as Not 
sound a one as could be adopted under the circumstances, but the ^ y 
interest of the English government in the colonies during most of 
the eighteenth century was not great enough to make it very per 
sistent in following any policy. The more debatable part of the 
program was, in fact, the part that was most effectively carried 
out. In colonies where a majority of the inhabitants were members 
of the Church, the provincial assemblies showed themselves will 
ing to provide for the Establishment on their own initiative, 
though not always upon terms which were acceptable to the 
ecclesiastical authorities in England. Acts of Establishment were 
also obtained, however, through the efforts of the royal governors 
in the colonies of New York and North Carolina which, though 
they had not been founded by any definite dissenting interest, 
probably had a majority of dissenters at the time that the acts 
were passed. In New York, where the Establishment was obtained 
at the beginning of the century, so that the hostility aroused had 
time to wear off before the American Revolution, the Church was 
probably strengthened by the measure, at least in New York City 
and Westchester County, but in North Carolina, where a Church 
Act acceptable to the home government was not obtained until 
within a few years of the Revolution, and where some of its fea 
tures were obnoxious even to Churchmen, the ill will produced by 
it was seriously harmful. With the coming of the Revolution the 
Church interest in that colony was utterly crushed, and it did not 
even begin to revive until well into the nineteenth century. 

On the other hand, the efforts of the English authorities to ob 
tain religious freedom for the Church in New England were 
half-hearted and spasmodic. The home government always felt a 
certain amount of nervousness with respect to these colonies, for 


it was feared that any vigorous attempt to interfere in their relig 
ious or political affairs would drive them into open rebellion, and 
after the fiasco of Andros they were always handled gingerly. 
That the Church ultimately obtained something approaching 
religious equality in New England was due more to the growing 
spirit of toleration in the colonies, and to the combined exertions 
of Churchmen and other opponents of the standing order in that 
section, chiefly the Baptists and Quakers, than to any active inter 
vention of the English Ministry or its agents. In Pennsylvania, the 
only other dissenting colony after the collapse of the Roman 
Catholic power in Maryland, religious toleration had been pro 
vided for from the start, and a clause in Penn's original charter 
had required that a clergyman of the Church of England, duly 
recommended by the Bishop of London, should be admitted to the 
colony whenever any of the inhabitants should petition for one. 
It may be urged that, even though the support which the Church 
Disadvantages received from home was not as great as it might have been, it was 
cLurch's more t " ian was en iy e d by any other denomination, and this is 
Political probably true, though the Presbyterians received some help from 

Connection Scotland, and the Independents were supported, in their political 
interests at least, by the dissenting lobby in England. It must be 
remembered, however, that the Episcopal Church also suffered 
various disadvantages from its English connection. The great 
point made by the dissenters in their opposition to a colonial 
episcopate was that bishops, under English law, were officers of 
the State as well as the Church, and no amount of insistence that 
a purely spiritual authority was all that was desired, could dis 
abuse them of this. In some cases also, at least in New England, 
persons well disposed toward the Church were dissuaded from 
joining it by the argument that its growth would threaten the 
civil liberties of the colonies. The Church was bound by laws and 
customs adapted to a very different situation from that which it 
found in the plantations, and every important decision in respect 
to its affairs had to be referred across the seas to an authority but 
slightly acquainted with colonial conditions. Because its ministry 
was incomplete, and because it was under the nominal jurisdiction 
of an English bishop, the nearest approach which it could attain 
to local self-government was the holding of voluntary conventions 
of the clergy which usually included those of only one colony, and 



rarely o more than two or three. When the final conflict arose 
between the colonies and the mother country, the loyalty to the 
Crown of most of her clergy and many of her laity in the northern 
colonies cost the Church great unpopularity; the forced flight of 
many of these clergymen when open hostilities began caused her 
services to be interrupted and created a shortage in her ministry, 
which was not to be remedied for many years; and the sudden 
cessation of aid from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 
at the end of the war, and the repeal of the various acts of estab 
lishment left her impoverished and, in many places, temporarily 

In the eighteenth century all of the colonies, except Connecticut 
and Rhode Island, had governors appointed by the King, or by The Governor 
their proprietors, most of them had appointive councils, and all 
of them had elective assemblies. As all of the proprietors had 
become Churchmen before the century was very far advanced, 
the governor was the natural leader of the Church in his colony, 
and in all of the colonies he performed certain functions which 
were then considered ecclesiastical, of which the most important 
were the granting of licenses to marry and the probating of wills. 
In the colonies where the Church was established (Virginia, Mary 
land, South Carolina, New York, and later North Carolina and 
Georgia), the governor was also regarded as in some measure the 
"Ordinary" of the province. He investigated the qualifications of 
newly-arrived ministers, and inducted them into their parishes, 
either upon presentation by the vestries, as in Virginia, or upon 
his own initiative, as in Maryland. He sometimes acted, also, to 
deprive unworthy clergymen of their benefices, and even in a 
few cases, to suspend or depose them from their ministry, but his 
assumption of this power was generally opposed by the ecclesi 
astical authorities at home, and by the Commissaries in the col 
onies, as inconsistent with the Constitution of the Church of 
England. As there were no ecclesiastical courts in the colonies, 
what little canon law was enforced upon the laity was applied 
by the civil courts, which were more or less subject to the gover 
nor's control. 

In politics, the governor, if he were honest, sought to advance 
the interests of the power which appointed him, whether royal or 
proprietary. The council if appointive, usually, though not always. 



supported the governor, and the Assembly, which, like the House 
of Commons, held the purse strings, generally tried to see how 
many concessions it could wring from the governor in return for 
paying his salary and granting necessary subsidies. In the game 
which was thus played out between them, the Church was too 
often used as a pawn. If the governor chose to appear as her pro 
tector, the clergy and others interested in her welfare were more 
or less compelled to support him, even though his personal and 
political character might be such as to do but little honor to their 
religion, and though their support would bring upon them the 
hostility of the Assembly party. If, on the other hand, the governor 
preferred to sacrifice the interests of the Church in order to obtain 
ends which he considered more important, active opposition might 
only serve to endanger her welfare still further. During the reigns 
of Queen Anne and of George III, it was generally understood that 
services to the Church were a means of obtaining royal favor, and 
governors sought to appear as her protectors whether or not they 
themselves felt any personal interest in the cause of religion, but 
under the first two Georges there was no such understanding, 
and unless they happened to have a personal attachment to the 
Church, they sought to promote her interests only when doing 
so seemed likely to aid their political schemes. As a rule the Church 
could do but little to control the gubernatorial caprice, though 
an occasional protest against unfriendly action might be lodged 
in England. The powerful influence exercised by Commissary 
Blair in Virginia sometimes enabled him to make and unmake 
governors, and a similar though less extensive influence was ex 
ercised for a time by Commissary Henderson in Maryland, but 
even in those colonies the Church reaped little permanent benefit 
from the political victories of the Commissaries. 

The ecclesiastical authority of the governor was supplemented 
Jurisdiction by the uncertain jurisdiction exercised by the Bishop of London 
of Lo n don P over the colonies ' This ^'diction, like so many English institu 
tions, "just happened. 55 It was not the result of any conscious 
arrangement or formal provision, and the circumstances of its 
origin have, in fact, never been clearly ascertained. One precedent 
for it may be found in the request of the Virginia Company to 
Bishop King to furnish ministers for their colony in 1620, and it 


is possible that another precedent was furnished by the jurisdiction 
over the English trading-posts in the Netherlands which Arch 
bishop Laud obtained for the See of London in 1633, and by his 
less successful efforts to obtain episcopal supervision of New Eng 
land. It is not until after the Restoration that we find the juris 
diction in actual operation, but by then it is already being justified 
on the ground of customary usage. In 1675 the Lords' Committee 
of Trade and Plantations, at the instance of Bishop Compton, 
directed that an inquiry should be made into the origin of this 
jurisdiction. The investigation appears to have been fruitless, but, 
nevertheless, the committee two years later agreed to a proposal of 
Compton's that, as he was "Ordinary of Jamaica," no ministers 
should be received in that colony without his license, and that 
none having that license should be rejected without cause. In 
1679, as we have seen, the instructions issued to Lord Culpeper, 
governor of Virginia, forbade him to prefer any ministers to 
benefices in the colony unless they had a certificate from London 
of their being episcopally ordained, and the governor was also 
directed to confer with the Bishop upon the religious affairs of the 
colony before sailing. In 1685 the Committee approved the juris 
diction of London over the "West Indies" a term that was fre 
quently applied to all of the American colonies except for the 
disposal of parishes, licensing of marriages, and probating of 
wills, which powers were reserved to the governors. 

After the Revolution of 1689, Compton adopted the policy of 
delegating his authority in the colonies to resident clergymen The 
specially commissioned for the purpose, to whom was given the Commissaries 
name of "Commissaries." These men, who were usually the hold 
ers of the principal benefices in the colonies to which they were 
commissioned, exercised a variable amount of authority, depend 
ing upon their personal character and the circumstances in which 
they found themselves. In colonies where the Church was not 
established, their position was largely an honorary one. The most 
that they could do was to preside over voluntary conventions of 
the clergy, and act as correspondents of the Bishop. In colonies 
where there was an Establishment, however, they generally at 
tempted to do something more. They called the conventions over 
which they presided "visitations," and sometimes took the oppor 
tunity which these presented of scolding the clergy for their various 



Bishop Gibson 
and Bishop 


misdeeds. They also claimed the right to suspend a negligent or 
immoral minister, after due trial, and though the indefiniteness 
of their authority and the opposition of the clergy, and sometimes 
of the governor also, made it difficult for them to make this claim 
good, they sometimes did so. 

Compton's colonial policy was followed by his successor, Bishop 
Robinson, but Edmund Gibson, who came to the See in 1723, 
was dissatisfied with the basis of his authority, and applied to the 
Privy Council to have it made more definite. As a result of this 
application the opinions of the Attorney and Solicitor-General 
were taken. They ruled that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the 
colonies remained in the Crown, and that if the Bishop of London 
were to exercise authority abroad, he must obtain a royal commis 
sion. With this ruling Gibson complied, and his authority was 
thus placed upon a basis of formal legality, a fact which seems 
somewhat to have strengthened the hands of his Commissaries. 
His successor, Thomas Sherlock, however, professed to believe that 
the commission was defective, and to be so tender of the royal 
prerogative that he was unwilling, even with such authority, to 
run the risk of infringing it. The real reason for his scrupulosity 
was probably his desire to obtain a colonial episcopate, of which 
measure he was one of the most zealous proponents. Knowing 
his politicians, he realized that they would be glad to avoid the 
difficulties involved in making any fresh provision for the ecclesi 
astical supervision of the colonies as long as anything like a toler 
able arrangement was in existence. He allowed the Commissaries 
appointed by Bishop Gibson to continue, but when they died or 
retired, none was appointed to succeed them, except in one or two 
colonies. The jurisdiction of Sherlock's successors, therefore, was 
even more shadowy than it had been before, and consisted chiefly 
in granting the required certificates of episcopal ordination to min 
isters going to the colonies. 

The two most famous of the Commissaries were James Blair of 
Virginia and Thomas Bray of Maryland. Bray spent but a short 
time in Maryland, where his chief work was to encourage the 
passage of a law establishing the Church, but he made the whole 
colonial Church his debtor when he became the principal agent 
in the foundation of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 
in Foreign Parts, and of the Society for the Promotion of Christian 



Knowledge. Blair remained in Virginia from his appointment in 
1689 until his death in 1743, except for occasional visits to England 
in the performance of his duty, and became in time one of the 
most influential, though probably not one of the best-loved, men 
in the colony. He was a Scotchman who possessed all the stub 
bornness of his race, and he had also a fair share of the irascibility 
which was almost universal among public men in the early eight 
eenth century, but he was also a fearless and indefatigable cham 
pion of the Church in everything which he felt its interests 
concerned. His great service was the founding of the College of 
William and Mary, of which he was the first president. In his 
capacity as Commissary, he fought with nearly every governor 
who came to the colony on behalf of the rights of the clergy and 
the college, and at the same time he sought to raise morals, and 
increase the clergy's devotion to duty. It must be admitted, how 
ever, that his efforts in this latter direction consisted chiefly in 
giving frequent scoldings. Blair himself reported toward the close 
of his career that he had only suspended two clergymen, though 
there must have been many more who needed suspension, and his 
neighbor, Commissary Wilkinson, wrote to London, "By inquiry, 
I understand that the Commissary in Virginia does nothing at all 
in the executing of his commission." 

Human institutions are rarely the creations of any one person, 
and though the honor of being the principal founder of the Commissary 
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts be- ^ r p ay G and the 
longs to Bray, the work could not have been accomplished without 
the cooperation of many others. The founding of religious societies 
had, in fact, become something of a fashion in England by the 
beginning of the eighteenth century. As early as 1649 a "Corpora 
tion for the Promoting and Propagating the Gospel of Jesus Christ 
in New England" had been established by the Long Parliament 
to support the work of John Eliot among the Indians, and this 
society was revived in 1662 at the instance of Robert Boyle, an 
Irish philanthropist and scientist who displayed a lifelong interest 
in the conversion of the American aborigines. A few years later, 
a number of religious societies were organized to combat the 
attacks upon orthodox Christianity of Socinians, Deists, and other 
heretics. When, therefore, Bray and other earnest men turned their 
attention to the needs of Christianity in America, the formation 



of the 


of a voluntary society seemed to them a natural means of promot 
ing its interests, just as the obtaining of a royal decree or bounty 
would have seemed the proper method to men of an earlier day. 

Bray's interest in the colonies began when Bishop Compton 
appointed him Commissary to Maryland in 1696. As he was not 
able to leave for his new post at once (he was rector of the parish 
of Sheldon in England), he devoted himself for a time to sending 
out missionaries and presenting them with libraries. In 1697 he 
laid before Bishop Compton a plan for the formation of a society 
to spread Christian knowledge both at home and in the colonies. 
His project was shelved for a time, but it led eventually to the 
formation of the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowl 
edge two years later. In 1699, by selling his personal effects and 
by borrowing, Bray obtained enough money to go to Maryland, 
where he held a visitation, and gave some advice to his clergy, 
and whence he returned the following year to obtain royal assent 
for the colonial Act of Establishment. On his return he published 
a memorial on the state of religion in North America, in which he 
repeated some information on religious conditions in the colonies 
which he had obtained and published in 1698, and added a sug 
gestion that to relieve the serious shortage of clergymen existing in 
the New World, persons in each diocese should be solicited to 
contribute fifty pounds as the salary, and twenty pounds for the 
library, of a minister to be sent to the colonies. 

The next move was made, not by Bray, but by the lower house 
of the Convocation of Canterbury, which, on May 13, 1701, ap 
pointed a committee to consider methods of promoting Christian 
ity in the foreign plantations. Encouraged, perhaps, by this mani 
festation of interest on the part of the largest body of clergy in 
England, Bray, within three weeks after the first meeting of the 
committee, petitioned the King for the establishment of a society 
to propagate Christianity in the colonies, and the proposal was 
duly referred to the Crown lawyers for their opinion. The Society 
for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge had, as we have seen, 
already been organized, and it now became the sponsor for its 
younger sister. At various meetings in May, 1701, it considered 
Bray's petition, a proposed charter, and other documents; received 
a promise from Thomas Tenison, the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
to give twenty guineas towards the cost of obtaining a charter, 

Courtesy, The Religious Motion Picture Foundation 


Pi O 


and undertook to make itself responsible for these expenses. At 
its meeting of June 23, 1701, the charter granted by William III 
was read to the Society, and thanks were tendered to Bray and 
Tenison for their efforts in obtaining it. The charter stated that 
the purposes of the new organization were to provide for the 
maintenance of orthodox clergy in the plantations, for the propa 
gation of the Gospel in those parts, and the "receiving, managing 
and disposing of the charity of His Majesty's subjects for those 

As the membership of the two societies was largely the same, the 
task of promoting the colonial religion was transferred almost en 
tirely to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, which held 
its first meeting within a short time, under the presidency of 
Archbishop Tenison, an office which was regularly held by him 
and his successors. On August 15, 1701, the Society instituted an 
enquiry into the religious state of the colonies, and on October 
17 some progress was made towards raising a fund for carrying 
out its objects. In the spring of 1702 a committee was appointed to 
recommend measures for carrying out the designs of the Society, 
and this soon became a permanent Standing Committee. The 
Dean of Lincoln, who preached the Society's first Anniversary 
Sermon, declared that settling the state of religion among its 
own people in the colonies should be its chief object, and convert 
ing the natives its second. This declaration defined the relative 
importance which the Society always attached to these two ends, 
for, though it resolved in 1710 that the conversion of the heathen 
should be its principal aim, the resolution was not adhered to. 

The first definite effort of the Society on behalf of the colonies 
was the appointment of George Keith in 1702 to go out as a travel- George Keith 
ing missionary and report upon the religious needs of America. 
This interesting personage had been a leader among the Quakers, 
but, becoming dissatisfied with some of their teachings, he had 
withdrawn and founded a sect of his own, which became known 
as the Keithites. He still found his religious position unsatisfactory, 
however, and in time he conformed to the Church and entered 
its ministry. He brought a number of his followers with him, while 
others returned to orthodox Quakerism, and a few continued the 
struggle to perpetuate their own sect. Because he had lived for 
some time in the colonies, he appeared to the Society to be the 


proper person to inaugurate its mission. The choice was in many 
respects an excellent one, for Keith was an energetic and devoted 
worker who possessed marked abilities as a controversialist, and 
had a convert's enthusiasm for the cause of the Church. On the 
other hand, he had the misfortune to possess a contentious spirit 
and a special rancor against the Quakers, which gave to his mis 
sion, at least in the northern colonies, something of the character 
of a series of controversies with his former co-religionists, combined 
with occasional flings at the Independents, and may have been one 
cause of that bias in favor of work among the dissenters which, 
contrary to Bray's intention, kept the Society from doing very 
much to supply the many sections of the country which were 
destitute of all religious services. 

Keith sailed from England on April 28, 1702, in the ship Cen- 
John Talbot turian. On the way over, he won the admiration of the ship's 
chaplain, John Talbot, who was so impressed with the importance 
of the mission that he became Keith's traveling companion in 
America and, after the latter 's return to England, devoted the rest 
of his life to the service of the colonies. The two of them landed in 
Boston, where Keith was invited to preach in King's Chapel, then 
in charge of Samuel Myles and Christopher Bridge. His first 
sermon was attacked in a pamphlet by the redoubtable Increase 
Mather, to whom he printed a reply after he had reached New 
York. From Boston, he took an excursion northward to Ports 
mouth, where the ferry was wrecked, and he was rescued by a 
Quaker with whom he promptly got into an argument. Keith 
traveled slowly southward, preaching in Episcopal churches, 
and thrusting himself into Quaker meetings whenever he could 
for the purpose of engaging willing controversialists in debate. 

Wherever Keith found Episcopal settlements, he was well 
received, and he reported that there was a general desire for min 
isters of the Church of England throughout the North, and that 
any delay in supplying them might cause the section to be lost to 
the Presbyterians. At the time of his coming, the only ministers of 
the Church in New England were the two at Boston already men 
tioned, and one who had recently been sent to Newport, Rhode 
Island. In the colony of New York there were no Church ministers 
except in New York town. There was none at all in New Jersey, 
nor in Pennsylvania except at Philadelphia, where Evan Evans 



Talbot in 
New Jersey 

and an assistant were serving Christ Church. At Philadelphia, 
Keith had a public debate with another former Quaker, named 
William Davis, who had published a book "full of blasphemous 
notions," and from there he reported that he and his associates had 
baptized two hundred Quakers in various parts of the colonies, 
besides receiving some who had already been baptized, and con 
verting a number of other dissenters. When he reached the South 
he found Virginia and Maryland fairly well supplied with min 
isters, most of whom were men of good repute, though some sec 
tions were destitute, as Princess Anne County in Virginia and 
Annapolis in Maryland. In North Carolina there were no min 
isters at all, and apparently Keith did not go as far as South 

When his tour was completed, Keith returned to England, 
where he accepted a benefice, but Talbot remained in America. 
After visiting for a time in New York and Connecticut, he went 
to New Jersey and settled down at Burlington, where he spent the 
rest of his life, giving as much time as he could to the service of 
neighboring churches also. In his old age he was dismissed by 
the Society on suspicion of being a Jacobite, and of exercising 
unauthorized jurisdiction over his brethren, but he remained at 
Burlington where the parish had, by then, become strong enough 
to pay him a salary. The charge of exercising jurisdiction over 
his brethren was based on a rumor that he had been consecrated 
by the "Nonjuring" bishops in England, of which more will be 
said later. He was one of the first to urge that bishops be sent to 
the colonies, and was zealous for every measure which he thought 
might strengthen the Church. It is possible that his dismissal was 
facilitated by his freedom in criticizing the measures of the Society 
when he disapproved of them. 

Keith and Talbot were but the forerunners of a constantly in 
creasing number of missionaries who were supported, in whole or Importance of 
part, by the Society until the separation of the colonies from the the S ' P ' G ' 
mother country. The importance of its work can perhaps best be 
realized by observing that there were not more than three or four 
self-supporting parishes in all the colonies where the Church was 
not established. Nearly all of the ministers in these provinces, 
therefore, were dependent in some measure upon the assistance 
of the Society, and the great majority would not have been able 


to continue their work at all without its help. Moreover, it supple 
mented the salaries of most of the ministers in South Carolina 
and New York for a considerable time, the colonial salaries being 
inadequate for their support. The stipends which it paid were 
small, (fifty pounds was the standard, though there was consider 
able variation), but they were regularly paid (which was not gen 
erally true of local contributions); they were paid in sterling, 
an important fact in view of the rapid depreciation of colonial 
currency; and they were paid in England, so that they could be 
drawn upon for purchases there without paying the heavy dis 
count which had to be charged on colonial bills to cover fluctua 
tions in the exchange. As all manufactured articles which could not 
be made in the home, as well as many common foodstuffs, such 
as salt and tea, had to be brought across the sea, this last item was 
an important convenience. 

Bray's original intention had been to supply ministers for places 
Its Special which were destitute of all religious services, or which were ex- 
New C EnSand P ose d to t ^ ie operation of Roman Catholics and Quakers, whom 
he considered scarcely Christian; but in time the Society came to 
make its most extensive efforts in New England, and especially in 
Connecticut. This shift in interest has sometimes been attributed 
to political motives, but it would seem that there are other cir 
cumstances which offer a better explanation. It is true that there 
were sound political reasons for promoting the Church in New 
England, where its spread meant the spread of loyalty to the 
Crown, but the political motives for supporting it on the frontier 
should have been equally strong, both because the spirit of inde 
pendence was often highest there and because the settlers there 
were always in danger of being exposed to the influence of the 

The real reason for the bias in favor of New England is, I think, 
more probably to be found in the way in which the claims of the 
various sections were presented to the Society. The historian today 
is in a position to know much more about colonial conditions than 
was anyone in England in the eighteenth century, and it takes a 
definite effort of the imagination to place ourselves in the position 
of the Society's leaders. For whatever understanding they had of 
the situation in the colonies, they were almost entirely dependent 
upon the reports of their missionaries and other correspondents in 


America, and among these, for one voice that was heard in favor 
of the claims of other sections, there were generally several to be 
heard in favor of Connecticut or Massachusetts. After the initial 
explorations of Keith and Talbot, the Society generally followed 
the policy of sending missionaries only where they were applied 
for by organized congregations, and where some assurance was 
given that a church would be built and some contribution made 
to the minister's support. As Massachusetts and Connecticut re 
quired everyone to support some sort of religion, Churchmen there 
were more ready to make these pledges, and also more likely to 
keep them. Moreover, the general religious ferment prevailing in 
New England after the first quarter of the century produced a 
fairly steady stream of converts to the Church from among the 
Independent ministers. As these men were generally of higher 
quality than any who could be obtained for the colonial service 
in England, the Society hardly felt justified in rejecting them, but, 
while they could be used effectively in their own colonies, or those 
with a similar population, the prevalence of inter-colonial jealousies 
made their employment in more distant provinces a dubious 

Whatever its causes, however, this apparent partiality did bring 
upon the Society a certain amount of criticism, both from within Qriticism of 
the Church and from the outside, and in time its leaders them 
selves came to regard the policy as inexpedient, especially as it was 
found to increase the opposition among the dissenters to the 
cherished project of a colonial episcopate. In 1758 Archbishop 
Seeker wrote to Dr. Samuel Johnson, president of King's College, 
New York (not to be confused with the English lexicographer), 
that in the future he thought missionaries should be sent where 
there were Presbyterians or Independents, only when a competent 
number of persons would certify "that they cannot in conscience 
comply with the mode of worship and church government in use, 
and that they approve ours, but cannot raise a fund to support it 
among them." This, however, would not have involved any great 
change from the existing method, as the persons who applied for 
missionaries were usually those whose consciences scrupled at the 
forms of Christianity prevailing in their region. In 1772 the Society 
resolved not to support any fresh missions in New England, but 



Difficulty of 

by then the existence of the colonial Church, as such, was so nearly 
over that the resolution had no time to take effect. 

On the other hand, fairness requires the observation that if the 
spirit of proselytism existed in the Church at this period, it was 
by no means confined to it. In a number of cases where Church 
missionaries were sent to places which had hitherto been without 
the services of any ministers, Presbyterian or Independent clergy 
men appeared upon the scene within a very short time, and by the 
third quarter of the century all of the major dissenting groups 
were engaged in the work of self-propagation in the colonies 
where the Church was established. 

Though the Society, as has been said, normally required the 
congregations to which missionaries were sent to pledge something 
for their support, it was never very successful in forcing them to 
adhere to those pledges. Even in New England it was reported that 
the local officers were generally rather careless about collecting ec 
clesiastical taxes from Churchmen when they had to be paid over 
to a Church minister, and in the other colonies complaints that the 
parishes were not living up to their obligations were almost the 
rule. Moreover, the Society had but indifferent success in solv 
ing the problem, which confronts all missionary organizations, of 
weaning the parishes that had become strong enough to be self- 
supporting. Parish budgets never increased in proportion to the 
growth of the congregations, and any suggestion that the Society 
intended to leave a parish to its own resources would always be 
met with detailed explanations from the vestry of why the people 
could not possibly afford to support their own minister explana 
tions which the missionary, anxious to retain his one sure source of 
income, would always second, no matter how much he might 
complain at other times that the people were not doing all they 
should. In 1774 the Society proposed to cut in half its bounty to 
missions of ten years' standing or more, but, like the resolution in 
connection with New England, this decision came too late to take 
effect before the Revolution. It would, in any case, probably have 
proven too drastic a measure to be carried out, but had a more 
gradual scheme of diminution been adopted at an earlier date, the 
sudden withdrawal of the Society's support after the independence 
of the colonies was recognized would have proven less disastrous 
than it did in many parts of the Church. 


For its support the Society relied chiefly upon the contributions 
of its friends in England, but it received some gifts from the colo- Income of the 
nies also. Several of the governors and some of the other great 
men of the plantations were among its members, and it also re 
ceived a present from the King of some lands in the "New Hamp 
shire Grants," later known as Vermont. These were transferred 
to the diocese of Vermont in the nineteenth century, but so much 
litigation was involved in making good the title to them that, in 
the opinion of the son and biographer of Bishop Hopkins, its first 
prelate, they did the Church there more harm than good. In 1767 
the Society was made the residuary legatee of St. George Talbot of 
New Jersey, a notoriously dissolute person who, for some reason, 
chose to pose as a patron of the Church. His will, however, was 
carelessly drawn and improperly witnessed, and the Society was 
unable to establish its claim to the legacy, which would have 
involved a considerable amount, could it have been obtained. 

The principal executive officer of the Society for the Propagation 
of the Gospel was the secretary, and it was through him that the The Secretary 
contact of the missionaries with the Society was generally main 
tained. He transmitted to them its directions and rules, and re 
ceived in turn the reports upon the state of their parishes which 
they were required to make at least annually, and any other infor 
mation or complaints that they might care to communicate, for 
they were forbidden to correspond with private members of the 
Society, though the Archbishop of Canterbury usually had some 
correspondents in the colonies, and the Bishop of London was 
in receipt of occasional official reports from his Commissaries and 
others. For the most part, the Society was apparently fairly fortu 
nate in its choice of secretaries, who were generally men of con 
scientiousness and ability, but we sometimes find complaints from 
the missionaries that their letters home remained unanswered, or 
that they failed to receive the printed abstracts of the Society's pro 
ceedings which were their chief source of information as to its 
wishes. These complaints were especially frequent in the closing 
years of Secretary Bearcroft's long administration, when old age 
seems to have made him negligent. Shortly after his death, in 
1762, the clergy of New Jersey asserted that they had had no ab 
stracts since 1759, and received little information of any sort as to 
the Society's wishes. With the succession of a younger secretary 


(Burton), conditions improved in this respect, yet even under 
him we find a missionary reporting that he did not know of his 
appointment to a certain station until another clergyman happened 
to call his attention to the announcement of it in the abstracts. 
Some slips of this sort, however, were inevitable in view of the 
distance which instructions had to be sent, and the uncertainty and 
slowness of the means of communication. 

The maintenance of discipline among the colonial clergy, in the 
Discipline o absence of any episcopal authority, was a serious problem, and it is 
the S.P.G. to t j le crec jit the Society that it erred on the side of strictness 
rather than of leniency in this respect. It could not deprive anyone 
of his ministerial office, but it could dismiss an offender from its 
service, discontinuing his stipend, and, though too many of die 
ministers thus discharged were able to establish themselves in the 
southern colonies, the prospect of being left without certain sup 
port in a strange country was still sufficiently alarming to make 
any who felt themselves disposed to stray stop and think. A mis 
sionary against whom charges of immorality were brought by 
responsible parties was almost certain to be dismissed. He would, 
of course, be given a chance to speak for himself, but no formal 
trial was required, and, unless he could produce pretty strong 
testimony as to his innocence and general good character, he was 
sure to be relieved of his duties. The missionaries sometimes 
complained that the Society was too willing to listen to charges 
against them, and it is possible that injustice was occasionally 
committed, but it was better to run the risk of doing this than 
to allow the Church to be disgraced by unworthy ministers, espe 
cially in colonies where it was already regarded with suspicion. 
Dismissal was also the penalty for any serious breach of the 
Society's instructions, especial severity being shown to ministers 
who went without permission to stations other than those to 
which they had been sent, even the best excuses being frequently 
rejected. This measure also worked some hardship, for the home 
authorities were not always correctly informed as to the char 
acter of the posts to which they sent missionaries, but it was 
essential if the Society was to retain enough control over its mis 
sionaries to use them in pursuing any general policy, as a minister 
sent to a difficult but important station was not always capable of 
resisting the lure of greener pastures elsewhere. 


In spite of all these precautions, unworthy ministers would 
sometimes be found in the Society's service, but the number was Character of 
surprisingly small, especially when we consider the remoteness of Missionaries 
the field of labor from its seat, and its lack of any local executive. 
Its men, in fact, constituted a sort of superior caste among the 
colonial clergy, both as to morals and ability. This was due partly 
to the superior discipline maintained by the Society and partly to 
other causes. The excellence of most of the New England con 
verts was one, and the fact that most of the missionaries worked 
under the scrutiny of hostile neighbors was another. More im 
portant still in weeding out undesirables was probably the com 
bination of small wages and hard work, which kept men who 
desired a life of ease and comfort, even on a humble scale, from 
seeking the Society's service. When such men did enter it, they 
generally realized their mistake in a short time, and left as soon as 
they conveniently could. 

Because of this superiority, their common dependence upon 
the Society, and the general similarity of their religious views 
(most of them being High Churchmen), the missionaries, though 
they had no general organization, formed a self-conscious group 
which transcended colonial boundaries, and to that extent they 
lent a certain amount of unity to the Church, whose activities in 
colonial times generally developed along provincial lines. On the 
other hand, because of the contempt and suspicion, whether jus 
tified or not, with which, they regarded the rest of the colonial 
clergy, they also operated in some degree as a divisive factor. 
This division, however, did not affect their relations with the 
ministers of the few independent parishes in the North, or with 
the heads of the colleges at New York and Philadelphia, who, 
for practical purposes, should be regarded as belonging to their 
caste. Many of these men had been formerly missionaries of the 
Society themselves, and most of them maintained some corre 
spondence with the missionaries, and with the Society, which, 
because of the comparative impartiality that their position gave 
them, often found their advice to be of considerable value. 

The general character of the colonial clergy has been too severely 
dealt with by writers, both at this time and later, though it was Morals of the 
certainly not all that it ought to have been. In considering the clcr s y 
question, it is necessary, in the first place, to distinguish between 


the northern and southern colonies. Though the number of un 
worthy ministers who came to the northern colonies from Eng 
land was rather high, in proportion to the total, the discipline 
exercised by the Society prevented such men from remaining long 
in that region, and the generality of the northern clergy may be 
said not only to have been free from scandal in their personal 
lives, but to have maintained a reputation for piety and devotion 
to their duty which was probably superior to that of the average 
clergyman in England, and at least not inferior to that of the min 
isters of other denominations in the colonies. 

In the South, however, the situation was less satisfactory. The 
In the South type of Establishment prevailing in that region was probably the 
worst possible, from the point of view of securing an able and 
devoted ministry. The salaries, though small, were generally suf 
ficient to enable a man to live without hardship, and the work 
to be done was simply the ordinary parish routine, so that there 
was little in the service to appeal to men imbued with a genuine 
missionary spirit and, on the other hand, the absence of any im 
portant posts to which they might hope for preferment (unless the 
presidency of the college in Virginia could be considered such), 
chilled the interest of the able and ambitious. The men who came, 
therefore, were generally men of limited abilities, of little ambition 
and no influence, and, sometimes at least, of very little religion. In 
the southern colonies they would hold a position somewhere be 
tween a servant and a gentleman, and they might occasionally 
be abused and cheated by the planters. Nevertheless their parishes 
were better than the miserable curacies to which they might aspire 
in England; their livings, unless they were too blunt in rebuking 
the sins of the people, would be secure; and because of the 
absence of any strong ecclesiastical jurisdiction, they could feel 
reasonably confident that neither their private lives nor their public 
services would be subjected to too severe a scrutiny. 

Under such conditions it would, indeed, have been a matter 
for surprise if unworthy men had not thrust themselves into the 
ministry. Nevertheless, the sweeping generalizations sometimes 
made as to the degradation of the southern clergy would seem to 
have been based upon the impression created by a few extreme 
cases, rather than upon any adequate knowledge of the facts. If 
we count up the instances in which ministers are charged with 


specific acts of immorality, the total, though greater than that 
existing in a healthy religious organization, would never be found 
to constitute more than a small minority of the clergy in any 
colony, and this evidence is supported by the preponderance of 
testimony from the Commissaries, governors, and others who were 
in a position to have a fairly intimate knowledge of the prevailing 
conditions. It is probably true that many ministers who were not 
guilty of notorious offenses were slothful in their work and 
worldly in their lives. Yet, even on this point, the evidence is 
not entirely adverse. The rapid growth of dissent in the southern 
colonies after the first quarter of the century, and the hostility 
shown to the Church by many of the lower classes during the 
Revolution and after, would seem to indicate that the ministers 
had not done all that they should to win and hold the common 
people, but, on the other hand, from what evidence we have, it 
would appear that most of them performed the routine duties of 
their parishes with tolerable regularity, and it must be remem 
bered that a clergyman who did even this would have to work 
harder than a similarly conscientious minister in England, for 
the colonial parishes were more extensive, the people more scat 
tered, and the rate of sickness and mortality higher. 

The quality of the clergy varied, moreover, from colony to 
colony, and from time to time. A number of observers testify that Variations in 
conditions were at their worst in Maryland, and this observation Q ualit y of 
is borne out by the large number of specific crimes which we find ^^ 
charged against clergymen there. The evil was partly due to a 
hostility that existed between the proprietors and the Bishop of 
London, during the middle part of the century, which made the 
proprietary governors indifferent to the quality of men they ap 
pointed to the parishes. The fact that the salaries in Maryland 
were higher than elsewhere may also have served to attract a 
larger number of worldly men to the colony. South Carolina 
would possibly come next in the scale of ecclesiastical corrup 
tion, though between this colony and Virginia there is not much 
choice. North Carolina and Georgia had too few ministers to make 
an entirely fair comparison, but among the few they had were 
certainly some who were evil. 

The situation in most of the southern colonies was probably at 
its worst during the period that ran roughly from 1725 to 1760. In 


In the Middle the earlier years of the century the colonial service still had enough 
of the Century m i ss i onar y character to attract men o earnest faith, and during 
the sixties and seventies a reaction against the evil living of some 
of their ministers seems to have led the parishes to exercise a 
slightly greater care in the selection of new incumbents. Some of 
the young men appointed in the southern colonies at this period, 
such as David Griffith in Virginia, Thomas John Claggett in 
Maryland, and Robert Smith in South Carolina, were to perform 
valuable services as leaders of the Church both in the period of 
reorganization and afterwards. 

The great scandal lay not so much in the frequency of the 
crimes alleged against clergymen, or even in their grossness, for 
both of these might have been explained by the general crudity of 
colonial life, and were paralleled in the experience of other denom 
inations, but in the fact that so many of the offenders went entirely 
unpunished. Jacob Henderson of Maryland, for instance, was by 
no means the least active or most timid of the Commissaries, yet it 
is within his jurisdiction that we trace the shocking history of 
William Tibbs. In 1715, shortly before Henderson became Com 
missary, Tibbs was presented for various crimes to Governor 
Hart, who directed three other clergymen to investigate the case, 
but did not consider himself empowered to take definite action 
until the will of the Bishop of London had been learned. At 
Hart's recommendation, Henderson and Christopher Wilkinson 
were appointed Commissaries for the purpose of dealing with this 
and similar cases, yet in 1724, when the colonial clergy were re 
quired to answer a set of queries sent out by Bishop Gibson, 
Tibb's name led all the rest, and he reported that he had been 
twenty-four years in his parish. In 1732, Henderson reported that 
complaints were still being made against him, and that he "con 
tinues as bad as ever," but that, his own commission being some 
what uncertain, he dared not proceed against him, because he was 
rich and powerful. So far as is known, the reprobate continued 
undisturbed in his living until his career was ended by a peaceful 
death. His case was, perhaps, extreme as to the length of time it 
covered, but it was by no means an unusual example of the inabil 
ity of the Commissaries to deal with offenders in an effective 
In the later years of the century there was a great increase in 


the number of native colonials volunteering for the service of the Native Clergy 
Church, not only among converts from other denominations, but 
also, though to a lesser extent, among those who had been brought 
up within her fold. This circumstance helped, on the whole, to 
raise the standards of the ministry, but it created a new problem 
for the English authorities in raising the question of what testi 
monials should be required of candidates from America. Where 
the candidate was known to a local clergyman of good repute, the 
problem was not a serious one, but there were many cases when 
such references were impossible, and, as it was no light matter to 
reject a man who had made a long journey across the Atlantic for 
orders, the English bishops occasionally felt obliged to accept the 
testimonials of laymen. These, however, were sometimes mislead 
ing. There are many otherwise excellent people in the world who 
find it almost impossible to refuse to affix their signature to any 
document that is presented to them, and in a number of cases men 
who had been notorious evil livers in the colonies found it possible 
to appear in England with excellent testimonials and be ordained 
before information as to their true character could be rushed 
across the ocean. In at least one or two instances such men were 
appointed to minister in the very communities where they had 
acquired their unsavory reputations. 

Circumstances compelled some modification of ecclesiastical cus 
toms in the colonies, though on the whole it cannot be said that Changes in 
the Church showed itself very adaptable to new conditions. church Lle 
When changes occurred they were noted with regret, and aban 
doned as soon as possible. All services requiring the presence of a 
bishop, such as Confirmation and the consecration of churches, 
had, of course, to be omitted. Where there was a strong Quaker 
or Baptist influence, difficulties sometimes ensued about the bap 
tism of infants, and even where these influences were absent, some 
parents objected to public baptism, or to the use of sponsors. 
Funerals, also, had often to be held from private houses, generally 
upon the plea of distance. Holy Communion was celebrated rather 
infrequently in most parishes. Many of the clergy felt that its 
celebration upon the great festivals was sufficient, and few cele 
brated it oftener than once a month. When it was held, moreover, 
the influence of the Puritans, who maintained that only those con 
fident of being in a state of grace should communicate, sometimes 


deterred the people from receiving. Because of the shortage of 
ministers, candidates for ordination were occasionally permitted to 
read service, but this practice was frowned upon by the English 

Except where it was provided for by law, the cost of the church 
Church building was met by voluntary contributions, by the sale of pews, 

Buildings or j^ ^ use o i otter i es> Tbl s latter method, however, was not 
practicable in colonies where the government was hostile to the 
Church, as it required a special license. The architecture, where it 
had progressed beyond the rudimentary, box-like stage, was gen 
erally an attempt at the imitation of the Greek, as Gothic had not 
yet regained its popularity. The pews were box-shaped, with high 
sides, and gates to keep out any but the proprietors and their 
families. The pulpit, which was generally the most conspicuous 
feature of the church, might be in front of the Communion Table, 
or behind it, or at the side of the church, or at the opposite end, 
in which case the pew boxes had seats on either side, so that the 
congregation could turn around when the minister went up to 
preach. Nearly everything that went into the church, except the 
stone or timber, including glass for the windows and sometimes 
even nails, had to be imported from England, and as such imports 
were expensive, many of the churches were but poorly furnished. 
Sometimes the minister could not even comply with the canon re 
quiring him to wear a surplice while officiating, as this vestment 
had to be made of a finer cloth than could be woven in the 

Though the opportunities for respectable women to earn a 
Clergy livelihood were probably better in the colonies than in the older 

R countries, and though second marriages were rather frequent, the 

lot of widows whose husbands left them unprovided for was, 
nevertheless, a hard one, and societies to care for the widows and 
orphans of clergymen were organized as soon as the number of 
ministers in the colonial Church was large enough to make such 
institutions feasible. A beginning was made in Virginia in 1754, 
when a plan for the relief of widows and orphans drafted by 
Commissary Dawson was approved by a voluntary convention of 
ministers, but the first definite organization seems to have been 
that completed by the clergy of South Carolina in 1762. The most 
significant of the associations, however, was that organized in the 


colonies of Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey under the 
leadership of William Smith, Provost of the College of Philadel 
phia, in 1767. This was the only important inter-colonial enter 
prise undertaken by the American clergy, and it was no mere 
accident that through its meeting one of the first steps in the re 
organization of the Church after the Revolution was taken. The 
societies were organized upon an insurance basis, the minister 
making a regular contribution, and his family receiving a pro 
portionate return after his death. The New York-Pennsylvania 
Society enjoyed the special patronage of the Society for the Propa 
gation of the Gospel, whose missionaries supplied the bulk of its 

Provincial religion tended to be divided along colonial lines, 
and it is possible to identify most of the colonies with some pre 
dominant type of Christianity. As a consciousness of inter-colonial 
unity began to develop in secular affairs, however, a similar tend 
ency showed itself in religion. Not only did the prevailing denom 
ination in one colony tend to invade the others, but religious 
groups began to appear which had no definite association with any 
particular colony or region. The first of these were the Baptists, 
who, though they appeared first in Rhode Island, spread rapidly 
throughout the colonies, as traveling artisans and laborers carried 
their message everywhere, and the Presbyterians, with their more 
formal ministry, were not far behind them. 

The most conspicuous of the inter-colonial religious movements, 
however, and one which transcended denominational as well as ^ 

political lines, was that known as the "Great Awakening," which Awakemn s 
had its origin in the exciting work of Jonathan Edwards at 
Northampton, Massachusetts, but which in its wider aspects is 
associated with the preaching of George Whitefield. This brilliant 
and earnest, but somewhat undisciplined personality made his 
first appearance in America in 1738 when, though only in deacon's 
orders, he came over to succeed John Wesley as rector at Savannah, 
Georgia, the only parish which either ever held. Unlike Wesley, 
Whitefield was popular in Georgia, but he remained there only 
long enough to form the project of establishing an orphanage 
(which he called "Bethesda College"), on a scale which the size and 
development of the colony hardly seemed to warrant. The rest of 
his life he spent as a traveling preacher in England and America, 


converting sinners, and raising money for the orphanage, which 
became his hobby. His preaching set the colonies in ferment, every 
province being in some measure affected, created a temporary 
schism among the Presbyterians, and gave a considerable impetus 
to the Baptist Church, which was more or less sympathetic with 
his views, but his ideas produced surprisingly little in the way of 
permanent results, probably because they failed to eventuate in 
any definite organization. 

The ministers of the Episcopal Church, acting on instructions 
its Effect on from home, nearly always opposed Whitefield, generally with 
the Church success so far as their own immediate flocks were concerned, and 
were roundly abused by him for doing so. In the end the Church 
probably gained by his preaching, but if so, in the way of reaction 
rather than of direct conversion. Though Whitefield remained all 
his life officially within the ministry of the Church, his converts 
generally found their spiritual home in other denominations, but 
the success of most clergymen in checking the spread of enthu 
siasm within their parishes drew to the Church a good many who 
were distressed by the extravagances and dissensions which that 
enthusiasm produced elsewhere. 



N THE preceding chapter we have considered the general 
circumstances and agencies which conditioned the life of the Virginia 
Church in the eighteenth century, and in subsequent chapters we 
will consider one or two of the movements which affected the 
colonies generally. As, however, the work of the Church was 
carried on in a somewhat different manner in the several prov 
inces, it will be necessary, for an adequate presentation of our sub 
ject, to give some consideration to their separate histories. To begin 
with, therefore, we will turn our attention once more to Virginia. 

We left that colony with the Church well established and fairly, 
though not sufficiently, well supplied with ministers, and we noted 
that some of the characteristics of later Virginia Churchmanship 
had probably begun to show themselves already. The Revolution 
of 1689 brought less change there than in some of the other 
provinces. Though Virginia had been loyal to the Stuarts in the 
Puritan Revolution, she had no fondness for Roman Catholicism, 
and was perfectly willing to accept the Protestant Succession in 
the House of Orange. King William appointed Lord Effingham 
governor in 1689, and, as that noble personage could not be ex 
pected to exile himself to the plantations, Sir Francis Nicholson, 
whose service under James II in New York does not seem to have 
rendered him at all obnoxious to the new regime, was sent as his 
deputy. With Nicholson came Commissary James Blair, to whose 
fame we have already alluded. 

The project of founding a college in Virginia, which had been 
begun in 1620, had never been entirely given up, and now both The College 

Blair and Nicholson exerted themselves to bring- it to fruition. oi ^^ m 
A . .,, -. ,, o ,, and Mary 

As it was not thought expedient to call an assembly until the 
sentiment of the colony in regard to the change in government 
was better known, Blair began his work by opening a private 



subscription for the college. When the legislature met, in 1691, it 
approved his measures and appointed him its agent to solicit a 
charter and contributions from the King. Further encouraged by 
a monetary gift from Governor Nicholson, he sailed promptly for 
England, where he found that His Majesty had gone abroad to 
look after his affairs in Holland. He laid the ground for his appli 
cation, however, by securing the cooperation of Bishop Compton 
and Archbishop Tillotson, and of Bishop Stillingfleet of Worcester, 
who enjoyed great favor with the Queen. Mary, in whose person, 
as daughter of James II, the succession actually lodged, was legally 
joint sovereign with her husband, but she was much too docile a 
wife to act upon her own initiative, and would only promise to 
intercede with her lord and master upon his return. He proved 
favorably disposed, but his attention was, for a time, absorbed in 
preparations for war with France, and Blair had to wait several 
months before he could obtain the desired grant, though he made 
some use of the delay by securing private contributions. 

In 1693 the legislature voted that the college should be located 
at the "Middle Plantation," which was presently renamed Wil- 
liamsburg in honor of its royal patron, while the college itself 
received the name of both monarchs. A beginning was made in 
the work of instruction with the appointment of one master and 
Blair as president, though for some time the "College" of William 
and Mary probably had more nearly the standing of a grammar 
school. The college building was not completed until 1705, and 
then it immediately burned down, but by sacrificing the salaries 
of the faculty and obtaining further help from England, it was 
presently rebuilt. As its standards improved, the college assumed 
an honorable place among the educational institutions of the col 
onies. In time it contributed a number of young men to the ministry 
of the Church, though not nearly so many as the Puritan college at 
New Haven. 

Lord Effingham's resignation in 1692 caused Nicholson to be 
nro re P laceci b y Sir Edmund Andros, and the relations between gover- 

Governor nor an d Commissary were changed from cooperation to hostility. 
As we have seen, Andros had made himself unpopular in Massa 
chusetts by his inconsiderate zeal for the cause of the Church, but 
in Virginia he was accused of taking an insufficient interest in her 
welfare. The reasons for this change in attitude would seem to be 

Courtesy, F. L. Olmsted 

Charleston, South Carolina 


a conviction on Andros' part that the Virginia clergy were better 
paid than they deserved to be, and a personal enmity that soon 
developed between himself and Blair, whose natural haughtiness 
clashed sharply with his own. Their quarrel became open when 
Andros appointed a supply for Blair's parish during the latter's 
illness, and thereafter Blair devoted himself heart and soul to the 
undoing of the governor. He presented memorials against Andros, 
published a pamphlet on the Present State of Virginia in which he 
attacked his administration, and eventually appeared against him 
at a hearing before the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop 
of London, which probably contributed to the governor's down 

Blair's charges against Andros related to his attitude toward the 
College and his treatment of the clergy. As to the College, it was His Quarrel 
alleged among other things that Andros made its friends his wlthBlaur 
enemies, that he interfered with the surveying of the lands granted 
to it by the King, and gave away some of them, and that he en 
couraged his followers to refuse payment of the subscriptions 
which they had made for the College in Nicholson's time. As to 
the clergy, Andros was accused of not following the excellent 
example of his predecessor in encouraging their migration from 
England; of allowing an interpretation of the Church Act which 
reduced their salaries; of wasting the colonial revenues so that the 
quit rents, the surplus of which had been granted by the King to 
the clergy, were all absorbed in public expenses; of permitting the 
parishes to neglect the presentation of their ministers, though he 
had the right, as ordinary, to collate when presentation was neg 
lected; of allowing civil courts to try ecclesiastical cases; and of 
discouraging the parishes from appealing to the Bishop of London 
against unworthy ministers. The charges in this group relate 
mostly to customs which had been established in the colony long 
before the governor's time, and the rest are concerned with de 
batable questions of- policy, but there probably was just ground for 
complaint against Andros' treatment of the College. At the hear 
ing referred to, Andros' friends accused Blair of filling up the 
colonial ministry with Scotchmen, and of squandering the funds 
of the College by accepting a salary as president before the build 
ing was completed. The first of these accusations, even if true, 
was not a very serious one, however much it might jar upon 


English prejudices, and the second, which was based upon a 
technicality in the interpretation of the charter, was dismissed by 
the Archbishop. 

Andros was removed in 1697, and was replaced by Nicholson, 
Nicholson who had been serving in the meantime as governor of Maryland. 
Again Blair gave himself chief credit for both of these actions, but if 

Governor ^ wa$ rea i]y responsible for the latter, he soon found cause to 
repent of it. Nicholson had never been distinguished either for 
the evenness of his temper or the purity of his morals, and his 
weakness in both respects had lately been increased by a violent 
but unreciprocated attachment for the daughter of a local planter. 
He and the Commissary soon quarreled, though, except for 
Nicholson's private vices, there seems to have been no very good 
reason for the dispute, which probably had its real basis in the 
fact that both men suffered from a greatly increased sense of 
their own importance. In his public policy the governor proved 
himself as much a protector of the clergy and of the College as 
he had been before. He obtained an opinion from the Attorney- 
General of England to the effect that he had the right to collate 
to lapsed benefices, and by threatening to do this procured the 
induction of some ministers. He also made some attempt to main 
tain discipline among the clergy, and as this touched upon the 
authority of the Commissary, it probably served to increare Blair's 
hostility. By sacrificing the tribute money which earlier governors 
had collected, he induced the Indians of Virginia to send several 
of their boys to the College of William and Mary, where Robert 
Boyle had provided a fund for their instruction. 

Nicholson ruled Virginia for eight years, but at length the 
violence of his temper became intolerable, and he was dismissed. 
Though Blair had become his bitter enemy, the majority of the 
clergy regarded him as their friend, and at a voluntary conven 
tion held shortly before his departure, they furnished him with a 
testimonial, though they had been forbidden to do so by the 
Bishop of London. At the same time they issued a personal attack 
upon Blair and asked him if he thought he ought to exercise 
jurisdiction over them while charges, which Nicholson's friends 
had brought against him before the authorities in England, were 
still pending, professing, with mock respect, that they were willing 
to abide by his decision in the matter. Blair, after offering some 



objections to the irregularity of their proceedings, replied that the 
action against him in England did not suspend him from office, 
and they declared themselves satisfied with this answer, but when 
Blair asked them to withdraw their personal abuse of him they 
declined, and a rather silly squabble followed, which was ter 
minated by the final departure of the governor. 

Nicholson's successor died a short time after reaching the colony, 
and was succeeded in turn by Governor Spottswood, who is best Governor 
known in Virginia history for his efforts to promote the settle- s P ttswood 
ment of the frontier and the exploitation of colonial resources. 
He proved a consistent defender of the Church, and for some 
time his relations with the Commissary were amicable, but 
eventually a dispute arose between them. Shortly before Spotts- 
wood's appointment, the Lords of Trade had obtained an opinion 
from their legal advisers that the power to appoint ministers in 
the colonies was a royal prerogative which could not be destroyed 
by a general act. They therefore instructed the governor, as the 
Queen's representative, to appoint rectors for the vacant parishes 
without regard to the action of the vestries. This ruling went 
further than Blair thought proper, and he consequently found 
himself in the unusual role of a champion of the rights of the 
laity. Spottswood, on the other hand, accused Blair of being the 
chief promoter of disorder among the clergy of Virginia, both 
because of his opposition on this point, and because he permitted 
laymen to read services in vacant parishes, though this was re 
quired by a law of the colony. The clergy, moreover, whose ran 
cor against the Commissary was still strong, pretended to have 
doubts about the validity of his orders, as, instead of the usual 
certificate of ordination, he had only a testimonial of his having 
served as presbyter in the diocese of Edinburgh. 

This controversy soon petered out without reaching any 
definite result. Spottswood, or rather, those who instructed him, Induction 
had over-reached themselves by endeavoring to assert the dubious Controvers y 
right of collating to all benefices, when they ought merely to have 
insisted on the right of doing so in cases where presentation had 
lapsed, as this was allowed to them by all impartial legal opinion, 
and would have been sufficient to correct the evil of non-induc 
tion. As it was, though a few ministers were probably forced 
into parishes that did not want them, the custom of "receiving" 


ministers only upon a temporary tenure continued unaltered in 
most places, and remained a subject of complaint from the clergy 
throughout the colonial period. Just how much harm it actually 
did them, however, is not clear. Blair, in one of his protests, 
asserted that the insecurity of their tenure prevented the ministers 
from making good marriages, but if this was the case, the ladies 
must have been unduly finicky, for most of the rectors retained 
their cures for a lifetime. It is possible, however, that the theory 
of temporary appointment made them less self-confident in their 
dealings with the vestries. In 1752 the Rev. William Kay obtained 
a judgment of trespass against his vestry, both in the colony and, 
on appeal, in England, for seizing his glebe after a majority of 
the vestry had voted to discharge him from his rectorship, to which 
he had not been inducted. The implication of this decision would 
seem to be that clergymen who had merely been "received" 
were regarded as having the same rights at law as inducted 

The queries addressed by Bishop Gibson to all the clergy in 
Church Life 1724 enable us to obtain an interesting glimpse of the life of the 
m Virginia colonial Church at the close of the first quarter of the century. 
In Virginia the value of the livings had by now been fixed at 
16,000 pounds of tobacco a year, besides the product of the glebes 
and special fees for marriages, burials, and other services. Accord 
ing to Blair, the total income thus obtained was worth over one 
hundred pounds sterling in the "sweet scented" parishes, whose 
tobacco commanded the highest prices, and about eighty pounds 
in the others, but some of the clergy make the figures much lower. 
Only five or six of the clergy had ever been formally inducted, 
but the great majority of them had been many years in their 
parishes. Most of them had come to Virginia immediately after 
their ordination, but a few had held minor cures in England, or 
in other parts of America. The size of their parishes varied from 
twenty to forty miles in length, and some were even larger. All 
of the ministers resided in their parishes, as they were required to 
do, and about half of them had habitable parsonages on their 
glebes, but the rest were obliged to build houses at their own 
expense. The parishes were compelled by law to keep both glebes 
and parsonages in satisfactory condition, but very few of them 
complied with this requirement. In many cases the glebes were 


leased out, instead o being worked by the minister and his 
servants. Most of the churches were but poorly equipped, though 
a few parishes had schools and libraries. 

Service was generally read and a sermon preached once a Sun 
day in the parish church, the remoteness of many of the parish 
ioners being the excuse for not having two services. If there was 
a "chapel of ease" in the parish, service was held there once or 
twice a month. Holy Communion was celebrated from three to 
six times a year, the occasions on which it was always celebrated 
being Christmas, Easter, and Whitsunday. Attendance at the 
Sunday services was fairly good, but other holidays, whether re 
ligious or civil, were neglected. Most of the ministers catechized 
the youth of the parish with some regularity, either during Lent 
or in the summer. Most of them also professed themselves willing 
to catechize the negroes when their masters permitted it, but this 
was seldom the case. In parishes where there were Indians no 
special effort was made for their conversion, but they were allowed 
to come to church if they so desired. 

Blair died in 1743 and was succeeded by William Dawson, who 
had been professor of theology at the College. Under Dawson Commissary 
and his brother, Thomas, who succeeded him in 1752, the rela- Dawson 
tions between the Commissary and the governor became more 
cordial, though, for that matter, the hostility between these two 
colonial executives had cooled off in Blair's later years, either 
because he became more mellow as he grew older, or because 
later governors found it expedient not to offend him. Thomas 
Dawson also revived the practice of holding frequent meetings 
of the clergy, which his brother and Blair had allowed to lapse, 
possibly from a fear of the disputes which frequently developed 
at such meetings. He opposed the passage of the Tobacco Act 
of 1756, under Governor Dinwiddie, and he also opposed the 
deprivation of an immoral clergyman by the same governor, 
which, though done with the advice of the Council, was regarded 
by Dawson as an infringement of the rights of the clergy. Neither 
of these actions, however, disturbed the cordial personal relations 
which prevailed between Dinwiddie and the Commissary. Wil 
liam Robinson, who became Commissary in 1761, had had a 
personal quarrel with Francis Farquier, who was then governor, 
before his appointment, and the ill will between them persisted 





afterwards, but produced slight effect, for the Commissary had 
become a person of little account in the colony, being no longer 
even a member of the Council. 

The religious care of the frontier, where regular parishes had 
not yet been organized, was seriously neglected by the Church 
in Virginia, and in consequence the region was claimed to a large 
extent by dissenters, a result which was facilitated by the opposi 
tion of the new settlers to everything connected with the older 
portions of the colony, where the earlier planters had become a 
ruling aristocracy. In 1716 Governor Spottswood sent the Rev. 
Charles Griffin to the frontier, chiefly to work among the Indians, 
and in 1738 the Rev. Anthony Gavin went of his own choice 
having been moved by reports of the spiritual destitution of the 
people, but we find few other ministers reporting from that 

Gavin found that many of the people among whom he worked 
were Quakers, and from the reports of other ministers also it 
would appear that these were the first dissenters to appear in the 
colony in any force, but the strongest dissenting group in Vir 
ginia were the Presbyterians. Their first meeting-house was built 
before 1725, and by the middle of the century they were growing 
rapidly in the west, where many of the settlers had come from 
Scotland and the North of Ireland. The movement was strength 
ened and organized by the work of Samuel Davies, who was 
sent by the New York Presbytery to take charge of the work in 
Virginia in 1747. He labored in the colony until 1759, when he 
became president of Princeton, built up several churches, and 
made a number of converts from among those who had pre 
viously accepted the Established Church, but whether these had 
been brought up in the Church or not is not clear. Though he 
had complied with the Toleration Act, some effort was made by 
the Church authorities to check his activities. It was at first con 
tended that the Toleration Act did not extend to the plantations, 
and when this contention was overruled, it was argued that the 
Act did not justify Davies in making proselytes from among the 
members of the Church, or in serving more than one parish. In 
1752, Davies, who already had seven churches, applied to Gov 
ernor Dinwiddie to license another, and was refused on the 
ground that he obviously could not serve as a proper minister for 


those which he already had. This Davies frankly admitted, and 
made it a ground for asking that another Presbyterian minister 
be licensed to assist him, a request with which the governor, who 
was on the whole a just man, felt obliged to comply. Other dis 
senting groups had probably appeared in Virginia before the 
Revolution, but they do not seem to have been as numerous 
there as in the other southern colonies. 

There were also some groups of European Protestants in the 
colony, but most of these conformed to the Church. Their min 
isters received episcopal ordination and were in part supported 
by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. The first of 
these bodies were the French Huguenots, who came to the colony 
in 1699, the governor being specially directed to look after their 
welfare. In 1715, 291 of them were reported in Henrico County 
alone. In 1724 the heads of thirty-two German families informed 
authorities that they were sending one of their young men to 
England for ordination. 

The bickerings over the salaries of the clergy, which continued 
steadily throughout the colonial period, culminated in 1756 in the clerical 
row over the famous Tobacco Act of that year. For some time Salaries 
the low price of tobacco had greatly diminished the monetary 
value of the ministers' salaries, but an upward swing of the mar 
ket having reversed the situation, a law was passed permitting 
the payment of tobacco dues in monetary equivalents which were 
set at a rate higher than the previous prices, but lower than the 
present ones. The terms of the Act applied to all debts which were 
owed in tobacco, but it was given a special twist against the 
clergy by the Burgess' directions to the colonial agent to defend 
any suits brought against the vestries in consequence of the Act, 
but not against others, so that private debtors took the hint and 
came to terms with their creditors. The law was disallowed in 
England, but as its operation had been limited to ten months in 
the first place, it had expired before the disallowance could take 
effect, and the question arose as to whether or not such disallow 
ance was retroactive. The clergy brought several actions for dam 
ages on the ground of the invalidity of the Act, in one of which 
Patrick Henry, who appeared for the defense, laid the foundation 
of his fame by resorting to dubious legal tactics. In the end the 
question was carried to England, where the clergy lost their suit. 




The Act of 



The decision was based upon a technicality, but it was not thought 
worth while to reopen the case. Other issues were now coming to 
the fore, and a struggle was beginning in which the Church was 
to lose official support altogether. 

As we have seen, a local revolution in Maryland in 1689-90 led 
to the overthrow of the Roman Catholic power and, for a time, 
of the proprietary government. The first important measure of 
the colonial Assembly, after this upset had been confirmed at 
home, was to pass an act, in 1692, for the Establishment of the 
Church of England. The law, however, was allowed to lapse 
as soon as it was passed, and was not enforced until the arrival 
of Sir Francis Nicholson as governor in 1694. He showed his 
interest in religion by ordering a fast upon assuming office, and 
by instructing the Assembly as to what should be done for the 
conversion of Indians and negroes, the treatment of slaves, the 
table of marriages, public morals and work-houses. With Sir 
Thomas Lawrence, the Secretary, he offered to give one thousand 
pounds of tobacco toward the cost of every house which was 
built for a clergyman, and to bear the cost of surveying every 
glebe that should be laid out. He also caused the back taxes due 
under the law of 1692 to be collected, and sent the act home for 
royal approval. Unfortunately, the law contained a clause provid 
ing that the rights of Magna Carta should be extended to Mary 
land, and as the English authorities did not know what- this might 
lead to, they were unwilling to allow it. They sent the Act back, 
therefore, with directions that it should be repassed and returned 
without this clause. 

A revised act, sent over in 1696, was disallowed because some 
of its terms were calculated to work hardship upon the Quakers 
and other dissenters, and another was rejected in 1700 for similar 
reasons. It was not until 1702 that an act was at last passed which 
met the specifications of the English government well enough 
to be approved. This law, which was to serve as the basis of the 
Church Establishment in Maryland throughout the colonial period, 
differed in a number of ways from the provisions set up in Vir 
ginia. Instead of prescribing a fixed stipend for all clergymen, it 
directed that each minister should receive forty pounds of tobacco 
from every person in his parish, besides a fee of five shillings for 
every marriage. The appointment of ministers, instead of being 


divided between the vestry and the governor, was placed entirely 
in the hands of the latter official, a measure which proved to be 
productive of even worse evils than the Virginia arrangement. 
The reason for it was probably a fear that the vestries, being 
elective, might occasionally pass under the control of dissenters. 
These bodies were empowered to raise special levies, not to exceed 
ten pounds a head, for repairs on church or parsonage and other 
necessary expenses, but an act of 1704 required them to obtain the 
approval of the county court before doing this. Another law, 
passed the same year, required a record to be kept of the parish 
libraries which had been procured through the efforts of Bray, 
and also directed that they should be regularly inspected by the 

The Establishment of the Church was only a part of the general 
reorganization which took place in the religious affairs of Mary- Common 
land after the "Glorious Revolution." At the same time that the Schools 
Establishment acts were being passed, laws were enacted which 
seriously curtailed the liberties of the Roman Catholics, including 
a statute which empowered the governor to forbid Jesuits from 
entering the houses of dying persons. A more creditable proceed 
ing was the attempt that was made to provide the colony with a 
system of common schools, which were intended to prepare stu 
dents for the College of William and Mary in Virginia. Efforts 
in this direction began with the arrival of Nicholson in 1694. He 
offered to give fifty pounds towards the building of a free school, 
and to contribute twenty-five pounds a year for its expenses as 
long as he remained in office. Other private subscriptions were 
made at the same time, but no general appropriation was voted 
by the legislature. 

In 1696, however, the Assembly did petition King William to 
grant his patronage for the school, which they proposed to name 
in his honor. In 1723 an act was passed calling for the erection of 
one free school in each county, "in some convenient time after 
the end of the present session of the Assembly*" It is not certain 
how thoroughly this measure was put into effect. In 1724, when 
the clergy sent in their answers to Bishop Gibson's questionnaire, 
only one or two of the projected schools were in operation, but, 
of course, too much could not be expected in a single year. 

After Bray's short sojourn in the colony, no Commissary was 





appointed for Maryland until 1716. When John Hart came as 
governor in 1714 he was informed that the clergy of the province 
had never once met together since its first settlement. This must 
have been an error, as Bray had held at least one visitation when 
he was there, but there had probably been none since. Hart called 
the ministers together shortly after his arrival and questioned 
them as to the state of religion in the colony. Their replies indi 
cated that conditions were fair, but could be improved. The 
services of the Prayer Book were read every Sunday in all parishes, 
and on all of the other holidays in many. Most of the parishes 
were sufficiently supplied with church buildings, but their repair 
was somewhat neglected. Some of the glebes were good, others 
poor, and a few of the parishes had none. The support of the 
clergy was, of course, regarded as insufficient by the clergy. Every 
minister was a member of his parish vestry, all had letters of 
orders, and all professed respect for the jurisdiction of the Bishop 
of London. They complained of the lack of schoolmasters, and 
of the general neglect of the requirement that such functionaries 
be licensed by the Bishop of London. As the moral condition of 
the colony was bad, they urged the enforcement of the laws 
against moral offenses and an increase in the severity of the penal 
ties for some, especially fornication. They also prayed that the 
legislature "would seek an expedient against the damnable sin 
of polygamy." The growth of "Popery" troubled them, and they 
also invited His Excellency's attention to "the abuse the dissenters 
make of the indulgence given them by law." 

In 1716, on the recommendation of Governor Hart, the Bishop 
of London appointed two clergymen, Christopher Wilkinson and 

anes Render- j aco b Henderson, to share the commissarial jurisdiction of Mary- 
son and, ill 1 1 T- 111 1 
Wilkinson land between them, one on the Eastern and the other on the 

Western Shore. Wilkinson appears to have been a mild but con 
scientious man, who performed the duties of his office as well as 
he could and kept himself clear of public affairs, but Henderson 
soon became convinced that the governor was engaged in plot 
ting against the proprietor, the colony having now been restored 
to the Calverts, and in this he felt obliged to oppose him. As a 
result, he was necessarily involved in politics, and was rebuked 
for his meddling by the Bishop, but in the end his judgment 
proved correct, and after Hart was recalled, he enjoyed great 




Church Life 
in Maryland 

prestige with the proprietary interest. Eventually, after Wilkinson 
had resigned, Henderson became Commissary for the colony. A 
rebuke for being overbearing, which was administered to him 
by the Bishop early in his incumbency, made him cautious of 
exercising any formal jurisdiction, but he did proceed against a 
few offenders, and he held regular conventions of the clergy to 
consider the affairs of the Church. 

The answers which the clergy sent to Bishop Gibson in 1724 
show religious conditions in the colony to have been somewhat 
similar to those prevailing in Virginia. All of the rectors had been 
inducted, but their parishes were smaller than in Virginia. Most 
of the native negroes, perhaps because of Roman Catholic and 
Quaker examples, had been instructed and baptized, but no 
attempts were made to convert the Indians, as the clergy could 
not understand their language, and found them averse to Chris 
tianity. A few clergymen read service on Wednesdays and Fridays, 
as well as Sundays and holidays, and, though the normal number 
of celebrations of the Eucharist during a year ranged from three 
to six, as in Virginia, there were a few who celebrated it as often 
as twelve times a year, and Commissary Henderson actually held 
it twice a month. As in Virginia, the youth of a parish were 
generally catechized at least once during the year, and, also as in 
Virginia, there was a shortage of church furnishings. The livings 
were worth from forty to one hundred pounds sterling, depending 
on size. Most of the parishes, thanks to Bray's efforts, were in 
possession of small libraries. 

The year 1724 also saw an attempt made by the assembly to 
set up a lay commission to discipline the clergy. The scandalous Attempt to 
lives led by some of the ministers constituted the grounds for this Dlscl P lmc 
action, and a general attack on clerical morals was made by those 
who supported the measure. The laity certainly had some grounds 
for complaint, but it appears, nevertheless, that their charges were 
greatly exaggerated. Giles Rainsford, an apparently worthy though 
somewhat self-laudatory clergyman, wrote to the Secretary of the 
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, by which he had once 
been employed, accusing one of the brethren of visiting when 
drunk, a dying person and saying of another that he was a "mere 
nuisance." Commissary Wilkinson, in reporting the proposed act 
to the Bishop of London, also said, "The faults and follies of some 

the Clergy 


clergymen are too gross to be excused or extenuated." He declared, 
however, that he knew but two ministers on his Shore who 
deserved the severe censure passed upon them by the Assembly. 
The rest he not only held to be free from scandalous crimes, but 
he asserted that they displayed incredible diligence in the per 
formance of their duties. Many would ride twenty miles of a 
morning to read service, and in summer they often preached 
at one church in the forenoon and at another, some distance off, 
in the afternoon. A few were obliged to preach every day during 
one week out of every month in order to bring the Church to 
their more distant parishioners. All of this, of course, was in addi 
tion to the many visits which had to be made to the sick and 
aged, and for the private baptism of children. Governor Calvert, 
who vetoed the measure as unnecessary and contrary to canon 
law, also testified that the majority of the ministers had "behaved 
themselves very well as good clergymen and good subjects." 

The rapid extension of the area given over to the growing of 
The Tobacco tobacco created a falling market in that commodity during most 
Controversy Q f ^ co } on i a i period, and in 1729 the Maryland legislature under 
took an experiment in "controlled production" for the purpose of 
raising the price. The amount of tobacco that every overseer or 
laborer might plant was strictly limited, and the vestries, which, 
in the Southern colonies, as in England, were agencies of the 
civil as well as the ecclesiastical government, were to divide their 
parishes into precincts and appoint persons in each precinct to 
enforce the law by counting plants. In order to offset the expected 
rise in price, all persons owing debts, or parochial or other dues, 
in tobacco, were permitted to pay them either in colonial cur 
rency, at the rate of ten shillings per hundred weight, or in three- 
fourths of the amount of tobacco originally called for. The clergy, 
whose faith in this economic experiment was rather weak, re 
garded it as in effect a reduction of their salaries by one-fourth 
and protested vigorously, even threatening to leave the colony. 

As a result of their protests and of other objections, the act was 
disallowed by the proprietor, but another was substituted which 
allowed one-fourth of the parochial rates to be paid in grain. The 
object of this act, which was to encourage a greater diversity of 
crops, was an excellent one, but it proved nearly as obnoxious 
to the clergy as the former law, for they found that they could not 



exchange the grain thus received for anything but rum, an article 
on which, in spite of their reputations, they were not prepared to 
spend a quarter of their income. Nevertheless, the law was allowed 
to stand. 

In 1768 another attempt was made to provide for the discipline 
of the clergy, this time by setting up a board composed of the 
governor, three clergymen, 'and three laymen. The measure 
apparently had the approval of the proprietor and efforts were 
made to prevent the clergy from assembling to protest against it. 
They did so, however, and, as a result of their vigorous oppo 
sition, the act was given up. 

In 1767 a list of Maryland parishes showed that the majority 
of them ranged in value from one to two hundred pounds ster- Value of 
ling a year, and that the most valuable was worth ^364. Four Llvm s 
years later an act was passed requiring the clergy to accept twelve 
shillings a hundred weight for their tobacco, though the price 
at that time often ran as high as twenty-five shillings, and some 
times even to thirty. Nevertheless, a table of livings prepared 
in 1775 showed their average worth to be about the same as in 
1767. A few parishes had even increased in value, the maximum 
then reaching five hundred pounds. 

The growth of the Roman Catholic Church in Maryland was 
a constant source of agitation to the representatives of the Church Di ssent - m 
of England there, and if we believed all of their reports about it, Maryland 
we should expect to see the Roman Catholics again in control of 
the colony before the end of the century. Actually, however, they 
attained a majority in only one or two parishes. Their growth was 
partly due to the importation of indentured servants from Ire 
land, which practice was so extensive as to cause the Assembly to 
levy a special duty upon the Irish in 1717, but it is probable that 
they also made some converts, for it was frequently stated that 
they were "seducing" the members of the Established Church. 
The Jesuits, in spite of the restrictions placed upon them, came 
to the colony in great numbers, and as they were probably abler 
and better trained than the local clergy, they experienced a certain 
amount of success. 

The presence of Protestant dissenters in the colony is also noted 
from time to time. The Quakers had been there almost from the 
start, and were, with the Roman Catholics, the chief opponents of 


the acts of Establishment. Before the end of the century the Bap 
tists, Presbyterians, and "New Lights" (i. <?., followers of White- 
field) had also made their appearance. The growth of dissent, 
both Protestant and Catholic, was made the frequent subject of 
gubernatorial and commissarial addresses and convention reso 
lutions, but it does not appear that Protestant dissenters were as 
numerous in Maryland as they were in some other colonies. They 
were also less severe upon the Establishment there, probably be 
cause they regarded it as a bulwark against the worse evils of 

The colony of South Carolina was chartered in 1663, but it was 
South not settled until 1670. Its original proprietors included a number 

Carolina Q t h eoret i ca i philanthropists, and the desire to propagate Chris 

tianity in a barbarous country was one of the motives stated in 
their application for a charter. John Locke, the political phi 
losopher, furnished them, at their request, with an elaborate 
scheme of government which was never put into effect. In regard 
to religion, this code provided that the Church of England should 
alone receive public support, but that all who worshipped God 
should be permitted to form congregations privately. Like the 
Maryland Toleration Act, it also provided penalties for those who 
abused one another's religion. An attempt at settlement in this 
region had been made from Virginia in 1660, before the granting 
of the charter, but it was given up. The first successful settlement 
was made from England in 1670, and Charleston, which was to 
become the chief town of the colony, and, indeed, of the South, 
was laid out two years later. 

The first Episcopal Church in South Carolina was built at 
Charleston in 1681, and the first clergyman to officiate in it was 
apparently Atkin Williamson, who was there in 1680. According 
to a later witness, he was never able to produce satisfactory letters 
of orders, but claimed to have been ordained deacon by the Bishop 
of Dublin, and priest by the Bishop of Lincoln. His character 
does not seem to have been of the best, and the people would 
never accept him as a regular minister, but he remained in the 
colony for many years, and was granted a small pension by the 
Assembly in his old age. The first regular minister in the colony 
was Samuel Marshall who came over in 1696, and was elected 



rector of Charleston in 1698, when the Assembly voted him a 
salary of one hundred and fifty pounds. 

Though the dissenters in the colony seem to have been nearly 
as numerous as the Churchmen, the latter generally managed to Ecclesiastical 
keep control, and their zeal was possibly strengthened by the Legislation 
presence of opponents. In 1703 they passed an act inflicting loss 
of civil rights and three years' imprisonment on anyone denying 
the Trinity, or the inspiration of Scripture. In 1704 they made a 
law requiring all persons elected to the Assembly to take the oaths 
of allegiance and supremacy, and conform to the Church of Eng 
land. This act raised a great furore and was disallowed by the 
proprietors. In the same year the Assembly divided the colony into 
parishes and provided for the public support of ministers and the 
building of churches, but this act was also disallowed, because 
it set up a lay commission with power to remove ministers on 
complaint of their vestries. According to the governor and Coun 
cil, the only reason for including this clause was to secure the 
removal of Edward Marston, Marshall's successor at Charleston, 
who had made himself obnoxious to the Church party by his 
vigorous criticism of their effort to exclude dissenters from the 
Assembly. At any rate, his dismissal was the only use that the 
commission made of its power during the short time that it had it. 

In 1706 all previous acts relating to the Church were repealed 
and a law was substituted which was to serve as a permanent 
basis for the colonial Establishment. This act also set up a lay 
commission, but its functions were restricted to raising funds and 
supervising the building of churches. The salaries of the ministers 
were to be paid out of the public treasury, but if the general 
funds proved insufficient, the commission was empowered to 
make a special levy. The salary of the rector at Charleston was to 
be one hundred and fifty pounds, as before. The other ministers 
of the colony were to receive fifty pounds. The Book of Common 
Prayer was to be used in all churches, and the minister was to be 
elected by all the freeholders in a parish who conformed to the 
Church of England. These freeholders were also to elect seven 
men to serve with the minister as a vestry. Church ministers 
were given the exclusive right of performing marriages, but 
this clause was not actually enforced, probably because for some 
time there were not enough clergymen in the colony to make 

The Act o 


it practicable. The most influential supporter of this act, and 
of the preceding laws in favor of the Established Church, 
had been the governor, Nathaniel Johnson, and his resulting 
odium with the dissenters was so great that the proprietors felt it 
wise to recall him, though, at the same time, they expressed a 
high regard for his services. 

Apparently the only ministers in the colony at the time this act 
was passed, besides the dubious Williamson, were Marston and 
Samuel Thomas, a missionary of the Society for the Propagation 
of the Gospel. Thomas had originally been sent over to minister 
to the Yamassee Indians, who had been converted to Christianity 
by the Spaniards but were reverting to heathenism since the shift 
of their allegiance to the English. Governor Johnson had ordered 
him to go to Goose Creek Parish instead, though whether this 
was for the purpose of instructing the slaves there, as Johnson 
asserted, or to check the dissenters, as his enemies alleged, is not 
certain. As the fifty-pound salaries were in colonial currency, 
their sterling value was only about thirty-five pounds, which was 
not enough to supply a sufficient support, even with the returns 
from the glebe. Thomas was, accordingly, sent to England to ask 
the Society to supplement these incomes and to recruit five min 
isters for the Carolina service. He was successful in obtaining 
three clergymen, but one of them deserted him at Bermuda, on 
the way over, and the accession was further lessened by his own 
death shortly after his return. Two more ministers were sent out 
by the Society in 1707, however. 

One of the two ministers who came back with Thomas was 
Francis Dr. Francis Le Jau, who succeeded him at Goose Creek, and 

L<= J au w ho became one of the most devoted and successful ministers in 

the colonies. He probably did more for the conversion of the 
negroes than any clergyman not especially appointed for this 
work, and he also interested himself in the welfare of the Indians. 
He testified at a later time that his parishioners were among the 
most sober and best-behaved people in the colony, and one feels 
confident that the example and teaching of their pastor was the 
principal cause of the high regard in which they were held. The 
other ministers sent out at this time were also worthy men, and 
probably justified Commissary Johnston's statement that "There 
is not ... a better set of clergymen in all America than what is 


to be met with in this place." One of them, Robert Maule, who 
came over in 1707, held a place in the affections of the people 
second only to Le Jau's. The latter wrote of him a little later, 
"There is not the least person in this province but that expresses 
much respect for that worthy brother." 

After the disallowance of the Act of 1704, Marston tried to 
get reinstated at Charleston, but was unsuccessful. He was Commissary 
offered a country parish with a special salary of ^150 to com- J hnston 
pensate him for his loss, but this he declined. In the end he was 
compelled to accept a rural parish without a special salary, but 
he did not get along any better there than at Charleston, and 
was finally obliged to give up the ministry altogether. He tried his 
hand for a time at medicine and law, but with poor success. After 
he had been disposed of at Charleston, the parish was offered to 
Bray, and when he declined, the Rev. Richard Marsden from 
Maryland was received as locum tenens. He gave satisfaction, and 
was unanimously elected rector, but unfortunately, his election 
had hardly taken place when Gideon Johnston arrived on the 
scene with a recommendation to the parish and an appointment 
as Commissary from the Bishop of London, whom the congre 
gation had apparently asked to find them a minister. Marsden 
was, with some difficulty, persuaded to resign and the people, 
also with some difficulty, were induced to choose Johnston as his 
successor, but a good deal of ill feeling ensued as a result of the 
incident. Marsden received an appointment to a country parish 
and some assistance from the Society, but he presently returned 
to England where he had received a legacy from his uncle. 

The trouble with Marsden was only one of the difficulties that 
confronted Commissary Johnston on his arrival in South Carolina. 
To begin with, he was accidentally left on an island some miles 
from shore on the way over, and had to stay there for twelve 
days, without food or shelter, until some fishermen happened to 
find him. Then 'he found that his salary of ^150 currency was 
only worth about one hundred pounds sterling, and that this, in 
turn, would only purchase about one third as much in the colony 
as it would in England. As a climax to his troubles, he was sick 
for five months after his arrival, and never entirely regained his 
health. South Carolina was later described as the "graveyard of 
the clergy," and, because its climate was so radically different 




Grievances of 
the Clergy 

from that of the homeland, it rarely proved a healthy place for 
newcomers from England. Because of these circumstances, most 
of Johnston's letters home strike a rather complaining note, but 
he seems, nevertheless, to have been a conscientious clergyman, 
and to have had a useful career as rector, though it does not 
appear that he accomplished much as Commissary. 

Johnston's salary was probably larger than that received by any 
other minister, even though he received no assistance from the 
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. However, few of the 
stipends of the time were adequate. Le Jau once reported that his 
family had to live ordinarily upon Indian corn bread and water, 
with a little milk and a joint of fresh meat once a week. Part of 
his difficulty arose from the servant problem, however, as he had 
to keep three negroes (not yet entirely paid for), to do the work 
which could be performed by one maid in England. When he 
died, he left his wife and two daughters practically destitute, 
though their immediate necessities were relieved by a gift from 
the Society. 

The dissenters gained control of the Assembly for a time a few 
years after the passage of the Establishment Act, and partly as a 
result of this and partly from the general carelessness of the 
legislators, a number of laws crept into the colonial code which 
were unfavorable to the Church. In 1713, when Commissary 
Johnston paid a visit to England, the clergy entrusted him with 
some complaints to the Society against features of the colonial law 
which they considered objectionable. They said that four acts 
had lately passed the Assembly which contained some clauses 
likely to lessen episcopal authority, and that the practices of the 
colony relative to the institution and induction of ministers and 
other matters were contrary to English canon law. Licenses to 
perform marriages, they complained, were issued to others than 
Church clergymen and even to "some mechanic persons" (these 
were Baptist ministers). Ministers, contrary to the law of 1706, 
were sometimes excluded from their vestries. Those who returned 
to England within two years were obliged to refund the bounty 
given them on their arrival a measure in which there would 
seem to be considerable justice and ministers, their widows, or 
executors were obliged to leave parsonage houses in repair on 
removal. In elaborating on these complaints, Johnston stated that 


the lay commissioners had been given indirectly the power of 
removing ministers which was denied them directly, for they were 
authorized to pass on the validity of parish elections, and might 
start an investigation of a minister's tide to his parish at any 

In 1715 the Yammasees revolted against the English authority 
and the colony was exposed to the terrors of an Indian war. Some Indian War 
of the remoter parishes were entirely deserted, the men all going 
to fight against the Indians, and the women and children fleeing 
to the older settlements. In such cases the missionaries, of course, 
left also, but where any of their parishioners remained, they stuck 
to their posts, their houses in some cases actually being used as 
garrisons by the settlers. Several lost their homes and personal 
property in the struggle and nearly all were adversely affected to 
some extent, so the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 
authorized the Commissary to advance a half-year's stipend where 
he thought it necessary. 

Five years later, the colonists themselves were in revolt this 
time against the proprietary government. The proprietary officers Revolt 
were driven out and replaced by a government under Colonel Against the 
Moore, who professed to rule in the King's name, though without 
any real authority. The situation caused some embarrassment to 
the clergy, as each side forbade them to accept the marriage 
licenses of the other. In the end the royal government took advan 
tage of the revolt to annul the proprietary charter, and sent out the 
veteran Nicholson to restore order. Nicholson's zeal for the Estab 
lished Church was unabated, and as soon as he had settled the 
government on an orderly basis, he obtained an act raising the 
salaries of the clergy outside of Charleston to one hundred 
pounds, "proclamation money," which was said to be worth from 
seventy-five to eighty pounds sterling. The act of 1706 had pro 
vided that such an increase should take place in three years, but 
the provision had not been carried out. Nicholson also appears to 
have adopted the policy of issuing marriage licenses only to 
Church ministers, but in this respect he was not followed by his 

There were eight clergymen in the colony to answer Bishop 
Gibson's queries in 1724, and they described usages similar to 
those prevailing in the other southern colonies. They officiated 




of the Clergy 

once a week and celebrated the Eucharist four times a year. Alex 
ander Garden, who had succeeded Johnston as rector at Charles 
ton, read service on Wednesdays, Fridays and holidays, as well as 
Sundays, and celebrated Communion once a month, as did one 
other minister. Most of the clergy catechized the youth of their 
parishes with some regularity. There was a public school at 
Charleston conducted by the Rev. Thomas Morritt, Garden's as 
sistant. The salaries of one hundred pounds in proclamation money 
were now estimated as being worth four hundred pounds in paper 
currency and fifty pounds sterling. 

Commissary Johnston had died in 1716 and been succeeded as 
Commissary by William Treadwell Bull, who, in turn, was re 
placed by Alexander Garden, in 1729. Garden was more assiduous 
in the performance of his commissarial duties than his prede 
cessors, probably because he served under Bishop Gibson, who 
expected more of his representatives than did earlier bishops. He 
held eighteen visitations during his incumbency, and suspended 
four clergymen, of whom the most important was George White- 
field. The charge against this famous personage was that he had 
failed to use the services of the Prayer Book in the meeting-house 
where he preached in Charleston. He declared his intention of 
appealing to England, and was granted time for doing so, but as 
he failed to press his appeal, Garden suspended him in absentia, 
though the suspension does not appear to have had much effect. 
After Garden's retirement in 1749, no other Commissary was 
appointed, and the annual visitations became voluntary con 

In 1756 the colony felt itself sufficiently prosperous to relieve the 
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel of the burden of help 
ing to support its ministers, and the legislature voted to add thirty 
pounds sterling to the existing salaries of the clergy in cases where 
the Society's support was withdrawn. This, at the current rate of 
exchange, was expected to make the total salary worth one hun 
dred pounds sterling. The Society, consequently, discontinued 
most of its activity in the colony in a short time. The withdrawal 
of its supervision combined with the increased support to accel 
erate a deterioration in the quality of the clergy which had already 
begun to show itself, and complaints against unworthy ministers 
became more common. As the parishes adopted the practice of 



hiring ministers recommended by the merchants with whom 
they traded in England, rather than by the Bishop of London, it 
is surprising that the number of offenders was not much higher 
than it was. They had also, for some time, adopted the Virginia 
practice of not giving their ministers a formal election, but keep 
ing them on permanent probation. This, however, does not seem 
to have made it any easier to get rid of the unworthy. 

The dissenters in South Carolina were strong enough, even 
from the earliest times, to offer serious political competition to the Dissenters in 
Churchmen, but it is difficult to determine which group was in ^j ina 
the majority at any time. In 1740 it was estimated that the Episco 
palians formed forty-five per cent,, of the population, the "Presby 
terians, French and other Protestants" forty-two and one-half per 
cent., the Baptists ten per cent, and the Quakers two and one-half 
per cent., but these figures were probably little more than a guess. 
Moreover, the classification is faulty, for the Huguenots, who 
came over in fairly large numbers at the beginning of the cen 
tury, had conformed to the Church and obtained ministers sup 
ported by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel The fact 
that the Churchmen were generally, though not always, able to 
control the Assembly would indicate that they probably had a 
majority of the propertied class, or nearly so, but this is not a very 
reliable index of the rest of the population. In the several parishes 
the proportion varied from time to time. In some parishes we 
find indications that the dissenters were increasing, or were already 
in the majority, while in others it was reported that their churches 
were being abandoned for want of support. It is probable 
that the ratio of the different dissenting groups also fluctuated. 
From the frequent references which we find to the Baptists or 
"Anabaptists," as they were generally called in the eighteenth 
century, it seems likely that their strength was generally greater 
than that allowed them in 1740. In addition to the Huguenots, 
there were some Swiss Protestants who came to the colony later 
in the century, and conformed to the Established Church. There 
were also a few Roman Catholics, but they were not numerous. 

The frontier was neglected in South Carolina, as in other 
colonies, both because it did not lend itself to regular parochial The Frontier 
organization, and because of the difficulty in obtaining ministers 
willing to perform the arduous work required there. In 1765 




Mission of 
John Blair 

Charles Woodmason, a prominent layman and magistrate of 
Charleston, who had lived for three years in the back settlements, 
volunteered to enter the ministry for the express purpose of serv 
ing there. He was accordingly ordained by the Bishop of London, 
and employed by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel as 
missionary to the frontier, where he served faithfully until driven 
out by the Revolution. 

North Carolina was originally included in the same patent as 
its sister colony to the south, but its settlement was much more 
haphazard and the proprietors were never very successful in estab 
lishing their authority over it. The settlers, most of whom drifted 
in from the colonies farther north, were largely indifferent to 
religion and it was some time before any provision was made for 
it. George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, was the first mission 
ary to visit the colony, and as a result of his efforts and those of 
other Friends, the Quakers for a time predominated there. In 
1703, a Churchman who had been long in the colony wrote to 
the Bishop of London that, to his own personal knowledge, it 
had been for nearly twenty-one years "without priest or altar" and 
that before that time, according to all reports, conditions had 
been even worse. A missionary had been sent out, but had proved 
unworthy. In 1701 the Churchmen, by careful management, had 
obtained control of the Assembly, and had passed a vestry act 
which provided a salary of thirty pounds for each minister, but this 
was disallowed because the stipend was considered too small, and 
the Quakers, who had regained control of the Assembly, refused 
to pass another. 

At the time the above report was written, another missionary, 
the Rev. John Blair, was touring the colony. He had been sent 
out by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel as the result 
of a special donation from Lord Weymouth. He found conditions 
in the colony still primitive, and was obliged to hire a guide, as 
it was impossible for a stranger to find his way about. Finding 
many children unbaptized, he baptized about a hundred. Wherever 
he went, he organized a vestry, appointing a lay reader in each of 
the three precincts into which the colony was divided. He found 
the colony divided into four religious groups, of whom the Quak 
ers were the most powerful enemies of the Church. There were 
many who had no religion but who would have been Quakers had 



this alternative not involved too high a standard of morality. The 
third group he described as "something like Presbyterians," though 
their ministers had no regular ordination of any sort. Those really 
zealous for the Church, who formed the fourth group, were "the 
fewest in numbers, but the better sort of people." Blair gave up his 
mission after a short time, because his funds gave out and the 
people would not let him settle down in one place, and returned to 
England, ostensibly to lay the needs of the colony before the 

Lord Weymouth was so disgusted with this failure that he 
refused to renew his charity, and it was not until 1708 that the other 
Society was able to send two more missionaries to the colony. Missionanes 
These men remained in the province for a few years and were 
then replaced by John Urmiston and Giles Rainsford. Of these, 
the former was a dissolute person, though it is possible that his 
vices did not develop until after the death of his wife, which he 
attributed to hardships suffered in the colony. Both ministers 
eventually went to Maryland, where Urmiston died in a drunken 
fit shortly after Commissary Henderson had suspended him, but 
where Rainsford continued a useful ministry. The Society sup 
ported two or three ministers in the colony until the latter part 
of the century when, the local support becoming more depend 
able, the number was increased. 

The history of North Carolina was a turbulent one throughout 
the colonial period, and minor civil wars were of frequent occur- Act of 
rence. The Church, however, was but little affected by these, Establishment 
except that Churchmen were generally on the side of the govern 
ment. Acts establishing the Church were passed from time to 
time, whenever its supporters were able to obtain control of the 
legislature, but were all disallowed at home for one reason or 
another, though the vestries seem, nevertheless, to have paid the 
small salaries called for in these laws with some regularity. In 
1765, thanks to the efforts of Governor Tryon, a law was at last 
obtained which the English authorities were willing to approve. 
It increased the pay of the clergy to ^133.0.8 currency, and 
allowed ministers to bring suit in case of non-payment. It also 
gave them the right to certain special fees. No definite test of 
orthodoxy was required, but as the right of presentation was 
lodged in the governor, this irregularity could be covered by his 


Dissenters in 




instructions. The governor might suspend an immoral minister 
subject to the final decision of the Bishop of London, and the 
clergyman's salary would be uncollectable during suspension. 
The minister was required to repair the parish buildings and 
glebes. Unfortunately, this act was very unpopular in the colony, 
even among Churchmen, as the vestries disliked having a min 
ister forced upon them by the governor. Various expedients were 
tried to avoid receiving the clergymen thus presented, and the 
act did the Church little good during the decade that it was in 
force before the Revolution. 

It is probable that the dissenters were always in a majority in 
North Carolina, though the proportion of Churchmen in the 
population seems to have been on the increase. Governor Tryon, 
when he came over in 1765, thought the supporters of the Church 
were in the majority, but this is unlikely, though they probably 
did include most of the wealthier planters. The dissenters seem, 
for the most part, to have been even more poorly supplied with 
regular ministers than were the Churchmen. As a result they 
went off into various wild extravagances under local and not very 
well-educated leaders, so that many of them cannot be identified 
with any known denomination. There were many who called 
themselves Baptists, but these went beyond the usual teachings 
of that Church. Others called themselves "New Lights," but were 
not followers of Whitefield. He not only disowned them," but 
took occasion, on his last visit to the colony, to rebuke them 
sharply for their excesses. 

Georgia, which was first settled in 1732, was the youngest of the 
thirteen colonies. It was founded by the philanthropic General 
Oglethorpe as a haven for poor debtors, but it probably proved 
a refuge, as did most of the colonies, for less innocent char 
acters also. Nearly a fourth of the original trustees of the colony 
were clergymen, and the enterprise was supported by leaders of 
the Church. A site was set apart at Savannah for a church and 
glebe in 1732, and Samuel Quincy, a member of the famous Mas 
sachusetts family, was appointed its first minister. He remained 
in the colony three years, until a dispute with Oglethorpe's agent 
forced his retirement. His successor was John Wesley, who also 
got in trouble with the authorities, partly because of an unfortu 
nate love affair and partly because he was considered too ardent 



a High Churchman. His brother Charles had come over with 
him, but left even sooner. John Wesley was succeeded by White- 
field, whose brief stay in the colony has already been cited. His 
successor also stayed only a short time and was followed by 
Thomas Bosomworth, whose interest in the Indians was so great 
that he married one, and spent the rest of his life trying to get 
money from the colony on the ground that his wife alone had 
power to keep the Indians at peace. He resigned the parish in 
1745 and was succeeded by Bartholomew Zouberbuhler, the son 
of a Swiss parson in South Carolina, who was a devoted minister 
until his death in 1766 or 1767. When he died he left a fund to be 
used for the support of a schoolmaster for the negroes, and for 
other pious purposes. 

Georgia became a royal colony in 1752, and six years later the 
Assembly divided the colony into parishes and appropriated 
twenty-five pounds a year for a clergyman in each parish, but 
the only one outside of Savannah to be regularly supplied was 
Augusta. Special provision was made for Savannah and, at the 
time of the Revolution, it was described as a "comfortable prefer 
ment," worth three hundred pounds sterling. The ministers at 
Augusta, and some others that were sent to the colony from time 
to time, had their stipends supplemented by the Society for the 
Propagation of the Gospel. 

During the twenty years that Florida was an English colony, 
some effort was made to settle the Church there, but it was not Florida 
attended with much success, and was terminated by the return of 
the colony to Spain in 1783. 




Contrast with 
the South 



CONTRASTS are always inviting, and the history of the 
Church in colonial New England is in many respects so exactly 
the opposite of our findings in the South, that it will be more 
interesting, and possibly more informative, to proceed directly 
from one section to the other without pausing to examine the 
more moderate differences which existed in the Middle Colonies. 
In the South we have seen the Episcopal Church everywhere as 
the officially-favored denomination, and the other bodies strug 
gling, with varying degrees of strength, in the opposition. In New 
England we will find "Independency," or Congregationalism, as 
the established order, and our own denomination struggling 
amongst the dissenters. In the South we have been obliged to 
tell our story to some extent upon a descending scale. Though we 
have seen the Church grow in total numbers and in material pros- 
perity, we have been forced to notice a decline in relative strength 
and in inner vitality. In New England the growth of the Church 
in the eighteenth century was steady, and in some places rapid. 
We have already traced the beginning of the Church in Massa 
chusetts, and have seen that its entrance into that colony was 
made possible only by the exercise of a goodly amount of coercion 
on the part of the King and his representatives. Forces were 
beginning to work, however, which were to give Churchmen and 
other opponents of the standing order a hearing such as they had 
never been able to obtain before. Within three years of the acces 
sion of William III, the Mathers and their colleagues had their 
attention temporarily distracted from the evils of episcopacy by 
the pursuit of witches. The witchcraft panic, which seized Salem 
and the neighboring villages in 1692 and which cast its shadow to 
some extent over the whole province, has often been unfairly 
represented as an evidence of the peculiar fanaticism of the 




Puritans. Up to the close of the seventeenth century, however, prac 
tically everyone believed in witches, and all countries had laws 
against them. In Roman Catholic countries, where witchcraft was 
a form of heresy, its practitioners were generally burned. In Eng 
land and her colonies, contrary to popular belief, they were 
hanged. Earlier in the century, England had seen a witchcraft 
persecution much more extensive than that which occurred in 
Massachusetts, and similar outbreaks had taken place in conti 
nental countries from time to time. Witchcraft cases had appeared 
in the courts of other American colonies also, though no one was 
actually executed for the crime outside of New England. 

The real significance of the Massachusetts episode lies in the 
light which it throws upon the split that was beginning to develop Significance 
between conservative and liberal within the Puritan party. The 
conservative ministers, of whom the Mathers were the outstand- p an j c 
ing leaders, though not directly responsible for the panic, had 
stimulated it by their writings upon witchcraft. When die charges 
began to appear, they advised the judges as to what rules should 
be used in investigating them, and they commented upon the 
increased activity therein displayed by the Devil as being a pun 
ishment for the increasing godlessness of the people, by which, of 
course, they meant their increasing restlessness under ministerial 
control. Many of the laity, however, especially at Boston, were 
opposed to the proceedings. They circulated pamphlets in the Bos 
ton coffee-houses ridiculing the Mathers and their writings, object 
ing to the inadequacy of the tests they applied to the witches, and 
even casting doubt upon the present possibility of witchcraft at 
all. To their efforts, at least in part, was due the localizing of the 
persecution in Salem, Andover, and a few other places. In these 
efforts, moreover, we may see the beginning of a liberalization 
of Puritanism which was destined to work great changes in the 
Massachusetts scene. 

The situation created by this movement, together with the 
rapidly increasing prosperity of the colony, offered the Church a 
twofold opportunity to advance: through conversion and through 
immigration. It is a characteristic of all liberal movements to 
dispose some people favorably toward whatever ideas are most 
opposed to the system that is breaking down. In New England 
the most dreaded religious evilsor, at least, the ones most widely 



The Church 
in 1689 

Samuel Myles 

discussed were "Popery and prelacy." To have gone as far as to 
accept the former would have implied a greater breakdown of 
the Puritan tradition than had as yet occurred, but prelacy, when 
examined at first hand, was discovered not to have so hideous a 
mien as had been supposed, and some were found willing to 
embrace it. Others, when the Puritan controversies became 
sharper, observed the comparative harmony prevailing among 
Episcopalians, and came to the Church in search of peace. At 
the same time, as the weakening of the Puritan domination 
coincided with the growing prosperity of the colony, many were 
attracted to its shores who had no sympathy with Puritanism, and 
who readily allied themselves with the Church or other denomi 
nations more in harmony with their personal religious needs. 

In 1689, however, all this was still in the future, and the posi 
tion of the Church in Massachusetts seemed precarious indeed. 
The little chapel in the cemetery had not yet been fully completed 
when the stones of the Puritan mob were hurled through its win 
dows, and its second minister, the Rev. Samuel Myles, arrived in 
Boston to find the leading members of his parish in jail. It was 
soon learned, however, that the most important protector of the 
Church, the royal governor, was to be restored. The Puritans had 
hoped that the revolution would mean the restoration of their old 
charter, but, though William III was, perforce, a constitutional 
monarch, there was probably no man in Europe who had less 
tolerance for republicanism, and the old charter had made Massa 
chusetts, in effect, a republic. The new charter which he granted 
was, it is true, more liberal than that of most of the colonies, for it 
provided for an elective Council as well as an elective lower house, 
but the governor was still to receive royal appointment. 

With the restoration of order the political prisoners were re 
leased, and the little church to which so many of them belonged 
began to show signs of increased prosperity. The damage done by 
the mob was repaired and the building was completed and 
"benched." Gradually the necessary furnishings were supplied, 
most of them being gifts of members of the parish or visitors. 
Myles, who had returned to England in 1692, possibly to receive 
priest's orders, and remained four years, came back to Massachu 
setts in 1696, bringing with him various gifts to the parish from 
Queen Mary, and began in earnest his long and useful ministry. 



King William soon presented the chapel with a library, and a 
stipend of one hundred pounds a year to pay an assistant. As 
the latter, however, was to be appointed by the Bishop of London, 
and was not entirely subject to the direction of the rector, the 
post necessarily became a source of contention. Christopher 
Bridge, the first assistant to withstand the perils of an ocean 
voyage (two died in passage) was, unfortunately, not the type of 
man who could reduce this conflict to a minimum. Though 
apparently a respectable character, morally speaking, he was of a 
contentious disposition. After quarreling with Myles for several 
years, he went to Rhode Island, and began to stir up trouble 
there. He was succeeded by Henry Harris, who managed to build 
up an opposition party among the Churchmen, though a small 
one, and who also courted the favor of the Puritans. This last 
policy was an unwise one, for it deprived him of any chance to 
obtain a succession to the rectorship, which eventually became the 
chief object of his ambition. 

By 1722 the number of Episcopalians had grown too large to 
be accommodated in King's Chapel, and some of them began Christ Church 
the organization of Christ Church. Harris sought the appoint 
ment as rector of the new parish, but those who were in charge of 
the arrangements turned instead to the Rev. Timothy Cutler, 
late president of Yale College, who had declared for the Church 
that same year. He accepted, and was sent to England for orders 
at the expense of the parish. When Cutler returned he proved 
to be an able and devoted rector, increasing the number of his 
congregation from four hundred to seven or eight hundred in 
five years, though it decreased after the organization of Trinity 
Church in 1740. 

The most conspicuous, if not the most effective, champion of 
the Church at this period was a layman, John Checkley, who John Checkley 
did not succeed in obtaining ordination until after the period of 
his greatest activity had passed. Checkley was a native Bostonian 
who had attended the Boston Latin School, and had spent some 
time at the University of Oxford, though not as a matriculated 
student. While in England he became converted to the Church, 
and also developed a certain amount of sympathy for the "Non- 
jurors," as those clergymen were called who refused to take the 
oaths to support King William. He returned to Boston about 


1710 and set up as the proprietor of a book store and notion shop. 
In 1719 he fired the first gun in a pamphlet war that he was to 
carry on for some time in behalf of the Church by reprinting 
A Short and Easy Method with the Deists by the Nonjuror, 
Charles Leslie. This pamphlet, which was to serve as the chief 
antidote to Deism for more than a century, had nothing to do 
with the controversy between the Church and the Puritans, but 
as an appendix to it Checkley printed one of the epistles of St. 
Ignatius, the second century advocate of episcopacy. In the same 
year he caused to be published some Choice Dialogues between 
a countryman and a parson on the subject of predestination, in 
which he quotes, with apparent approval, a charge which he 
ascribes to the Lutherans, that the Calvinists worshipped the 
Devil. He attributed this pamphlet to a "Reverend and Laborious 
Pastor in Christ's Flock," but it is generally supposed to have 
been written by himself. 

These pamphlets, naturally, caused great excitement, and a law 
HisContro- was passed, probably for Checkley 's benefit, empowering two or 
more justices of the peace to administer oaths of allegiance and 
abjuration to any person whose loyalty was suspected. When 
Checkley was called upon to take these oaths he declined, either 
out of stubbornness, or because he felt a latent sympathy with the 
Jacobites, and was fined and placed under bond for his good 
behavior. In 1722 he went to England, partly on business and 
partly, it would seem, to try to obtain ordination. In this, if he 
did try it, he was defeated by the suspicions attaching to his loy 
alty. While in England he purchased the right to reprint any of 
Leslie's works that he thought proper, a formality with which 
he does not seem to have troubled himself before the publication 
of his first pamphlet. 

On his return to Boston, Checkley published a Modest Proof 
of the Order and Government Settled by Christ and his Apostles 
in the Church, which was answered by two Puritan ministers. In 
reply, Checkley again reprinted A Short and Easy Method with 
the Deists, which he now enriched with a Discourse Concerning 
Episcopacy, partly compiled from the writings of Leslie and an 
other pamphleteer, and partly the work of his own hand. It 
denied the validity of any but episcopal succession, and contained 
some allusions to the dissenters which were more or less abusive, 


though they did not go beyond the usual amenities of contem 
porary religious controversy. The remarks were given no per 
sonal application to the local ministers, but the pamphlet was, 
nevertheless, presented as a libel upon those gentlemen, and 
Checkley, after a trial and appeal, was fined fifty pounds and costs 
and again placed under bonds for his good behavior. 

Checkley carried on his pamphlet controversy while the trial 
was in session, but discontinued it shortly after, the publication 
of his defense before the court serving as his last blast. In 1727 he 
again applied for ordination, and was again refused, probably 
because Bishop Gibson thought the measure inexpedient in view 
of the strong feeling that still prevailed as the result of his trial. 
He had removed the suspicion of disloyalty, as well as he could, 
by taking the required oaths before his trial commenced. He lived 
quietly for the next ten years, and when he renewed his applica 
tion for Holy Orders in 1738 he was accepted and appointed min 
ister to Providence, Rhode Island, where he ended his days. How 
many converts were made by his pamphlets it is impossible to 
say, but at least they made the claims of the Church known to 
most of the literate population of New England. 

While these battles were being fought in Boston, the Church 
was gradually extending itself throughout the rest of the colony. Expansion of 
As early as 1703, within a year of Keith's visit to Boston, some Massachusetts 11 
citizens of Swansea petitioned the Archbishop of Canterbury for 
the appointment of a minister, but as it was not found possible 
to send them one, they drifted back into Independency. In 1706 
the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel let it be known that 
it was prepared to aid any duly recommended graduate of Har 
vard who cared to come to England for orders, but for a time no 
one took advantage of the offer. In the same year it was requested 
by Myles to give some help to the minister of the French Church 
at Boston, who was episcopally ordained. The first missionary it 
employed for work outside of Boston, however, was Thomas 
Eager who was sent in 1713 to Baintree, where some Episcopalians 
had organized a congregation and asked for aid. Eager, unfortu 
nately, proved unworthy of the trust reposed in him and left the 
colony in a few months after having created a serious scandal. 

In the meantime, a dispute among the Congregationalists at 
Newbury had led to the formation of an Episcopal church there. 




Against the 

The local meeting-house being badly in need of repair, a majority 
of the worshippers decided to move to a new location, but a 
minority insisted upon rebuilding the old edifice. To prevent a 
split, the majority thereupon obtained an order from the General 
Court forbidding the formation of a second church at Newbury. 
At this juncture John Bridges, Her Majesty's Surveyor-General, 
and a staunch Churchman, promised the dissenters his support 
if they would declare for episcopacy. They agreed, and the Society, 
apparently not clearly informed of the circumstances under which 
the parish had originated, sent a missionary. According to later 
missionaries, many of the people were very much surprised at 
being actually supplied with a minister, and some withdrew, but 
enough remained to keep the church alive, and in time it became 
one of the strongest in the colony. 

The congregation at Baintree disbanded as a result of Eager 's 
misconduct and was not revived until some years later when 
Ebenezer Miller was sent there. In 1716 a church was organized 
at Marblehead, and in 1734 one was started at Salem, but the 
latter did not obtain a minister until 1739. A parish was organized 
at Scituate as the result of occasional visits from Miller, and in 
1736 it received Addington Davenport, later rector of Trinity, 
Boston, as its missionary. 

The chief obstacle to the growth of the Church in Massachu 
setts was the exaction from many Episcopalians of money to 
go towards the support of the Congregational ministers. The 
charter granted by William III required Massachusetts to allow 
freedom of conscience and forbade any laws hostile to the interests 
of the Church of England, but there was a good deal of disagree 
ment between Churchmen and Independents as to what these 
clauses implied. In 1714, after the organization of the churches at 
Baintree and Newbury, Governor Dudley secured the exemption 
of Churchmen there from the taxes to support the local ministry, 
and, though there were occasional disputes and arrests, this policy 
was followed wherever regular parishes had been organized until 
1728. In that year two acts were passed, of which one forbade 
traveling more than five miles on a Sunday, and the other re 
quired all persons living more than the same distance from their 
own churches to pay taxes for the support of the local Congrega 
tional minister. Thus an Episcopalian who lived more than five 


miles from his parish church and there were many such would 
not only have to help support a ministry he disapproved of, but 
would be prevented from attending the services of his own pastor 
unless he went to some place in the neighborhood Saturday 
night and returned Monday morning. 

Checkley and others protested vigorously against these measures, 
but they were permitted to stand by the home authorities. In 
1732 the Crown lawyers expressed the opinion that they were not 
contrary to the Charter of Massachusetts and that, in any case, it 
was too late to disallow them. About 1734, however, Matthew 
Ellis of Medford, a member of Christ Church, Boston, who had 
been imprisoned for not paying the required taxes, sought to test 
the law by prosecuting the constable who arrested him for false 
imprisonment. The case was decided against him in all of the 
provincial courts, but he obtained permission to appeal to the 
King in Council. In spite of the opinion above, the Massachusetts 
authorities seem to have feared that the case would go against 
them, or else they had themselves decided that the act in question 
was unjust. At any rate, they repealed it in 1735, while Ellis' 
case was still pending in England, and substituted a law which 
required the taxes collected from all persons regularly attending 
the services of any Episcopal Church to be paid over to the 
minister of that church. The act was at first limited to five years, 
but in 1740 it was made perpetual. 

The venerable Samuel Myles of King's Chapel died in 1727 and 
was succeeded, contrary to Harris' hopes, by Roger Price from Growth of the 
England. Price, who had also been appointed Commissary for 
New England, was the first clergyman to hold that position in 
Massachusetts. He remained rector of King's Chapel for twenty 
years, when he resigned to spend his declining years as missionary 
at Hopkinton, where he had organized a parish. His successor 
at Boston was Henry Caner, a former missionary in Connecticut, 
who continued his rectorate at King's Chapel until driven out by 
the Revolution. In 1740 Trinity Church was organized with 
Addington Davenport as its first rector, and the Church thus 
had three strong parishes in Boston, besides the French Church. 
Whitefield arrived in Boston the same year and business was 
temporarily suspended while everybody went to hear him. 
He preached throughout Massachusetts, creating a sensation 


Outside o 


everywhere he went, except in the vicinity o Northampton, 
where most of the sinners had already been converted by Jonathan 
Edwards. The general effect of his preaching in New England 
was to hasten the breakdown of the older Puritanism, and to 
strengthen the newer denominations. Some of the missionaries 
were alarmed by the first results of his preaching, but they suc 
ceeded in holding their people together, and most of them re 
ported considerable accessions when the reaction set in. 

The decades of the thirties and forties seem to have seen the 
most rapid growth of the Church outside of Boston, at least as 
far as the formation of new parishes was concerned, for we find 
a definite slowing up in the process after 1750. In 1748 it was 
reported that there were three churches in Boston, two in New- 
bury, and one each in Salem, Marblehead, Baintree, Bristol, 
Scituate, Hopkinton, and Taunton. Several of these, however, 
were without missionaries. In 1759 a church was organized at 
Cambridge to combat the various heresies with which Church 
men believed Harvard to be infected, and East Apthorp, a dis 
tinguished layman of Boston who had been a member of the 
Society and a vestryman of King's Chapel, was ordained for the 
post, which he filled very ably for several years. In the same year 
some land was left to build a church in Dedham, but as the 
testator's mother had a life interest in the property, it did not 
become available for some time, and the church was not built 
until 1771. In 1770 a missionary was sent to the western settle 
ments of the colony, with headquarters at Great Barrington, 
whence he also served some communities in New York. 

The history of the Church in Connecticut does not begin until 
1706, and the first minister to remain any time in the colony did 
not arrive until 1722, yet at the close of the Revolution the Church 
there was stronger, in many respects, than in any other state. The 
explanation of this remarkable growth is probably to be found 
in the fact that the causes which have already been described as 
contributing to the breakdown of Puritanism in Massachusetts 
were reinforced in Connecticut by circumstances peculiar to that 
colony. Connecticut was born in contention, and its history was 
largely one of strife. It represented, in fact, the not very cordial 
union of two separate colonies Connecticut, centering at Hart 
ford, and New Haven both of them Puritan, but representing 



very different phases of the movement. Moreover, dissenting 
groups, chiefly the Baptists and Quakers, appeared early in the 
colony in fairly large numbers and began a long and eventually 
successful struggle for religious toleration. In the strife of denomi 
nations which resulted, the Church had a chance to be heard, 
while, on the other hand, it was also helped by the greater nar 
rowness of Puritan Church membership in Connecticut as com 
pared with her northern neighbor. Connecticut Puritans had 
never acceded to the famous "Half-way Covenant" by which per 
sons not in full communion with the Congregational churches 
of Massachusetts were admitted to some of the privileges of 
Church membership, of which the most important, spiritually, 
was the right to have their children baptized. Consequently there 
were many respectable and even devout people in Connecticut 
who could enjoy no religious privileges except listening to ser 
mons and helping to support the minister, and when the first 
clergymen of the Church came into the colony they found many 
adults who were unbaptized. Finally, it would appear that the 
migration of Church people to Connecticut was greater than that 
to Massachusetts. Samuel Johnson, who was thoroughly familiar 
with conditions in the former colony, says that a parish usually 
had its origin in the association of persons who had been attached 
to the Church of England before coming to America. These would 
interest some of their neighbors in the Church and would then 
proceed to organize a parish, applying to the Society for a 

The growth of the Church in the colony was, moreover, entirely 
spontaneous. Connecticut had managed to keep its charter in the Beginnings 
dark days of James II and to have it confirmed by William church at 
III. The colony was, therefore, never subjected to a royal governor, Stratford 
and consequently there were no important Crown officers to pro 
mote the interests of the Church there. Its history began when a 
few Churchmen at Stratford asked the rector of Trinity Church, 
New York, to hold services for them. As the distance was too great 
to make this suggestion practicable, he referred their petition 
to the Rev. George Muirson, the Society's missionary at Rye, 
New York. 

Muirson complied with their request and visited the colony sev 
eral times in 1706 and the year following, holding services both 


Work of at Stratford and Fairfield. He was accompanied on these visits by 

MuJrson kis patron, Colonel Caleb Heathcote, who, as lord of the "Manor 

of Scarsdale," which covered what is now Westchester County, 
was one of the wealthiest and most influential men in the colonies. 
Without his powerful protection, Muirson would probably have 
spent some time in a Connecticut jail, and even as it was, the 
magistrates did all that they could to hinder his activities. On his 
second visit to Stratford, when he administered Holy Communion, 
Justices Joseph Curtice and James Judson read a long paper threat 
ening him with legal prosecution, and the former stationed himself 
and other persons along the public roads to warn all the people 
against coming to church. Nevertheless, Muirson succeeded in col 
lecting a respectable congregation, and in the spring of 1707 they 
felt themselves strong enough to petition the Society for a mission 
ary. All those who were acquainted with the situation agreed that 
Muirson was obviously the man for the post, but unfortunately he 
died before the petition reached England, and it was not until 
1713 that a minister, Francis Phillips, was actually sent out. He 
soon became discouraged, however, and obtained a position as 
supply for Evan Evans, the rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, 
while the latter was in England. Before leaving Connecticut, he 
informed the Society that the only adherents of the Church in 
Connecticut were people who wanted to get out of paying taxes to 
support the Independent ministers a statement which helped 
delay the sending of another missionary to that colony for several 

This invasion of their colony by the Church of England nat 
urally distressed the Puritans, and they sent one of their ablest 
ministers, Timothy Cutler, to Stratford to combat it. The choice 
was not a very fortunate one, from their point of view, for Cutler, 
according to later testimony, was already strongly inclinable to 
ward episcopacy, but the fact was not known at the time. In 
1722, the Churchmen at Stratford, having persisted for several years 
in the face of difficulties and persecutions, the Society relented and 
sent George Pigot to be their minister. He had scarcely arrived in 
the colony when his ministry bore dramatic fruit in a way that 
must have surprised him as much as it did his friends and his 
opponents, and for which, in fact, he was but slightly responsible. 
In his first report to the Society, which was dated August 20, 



1722, he stated that though the principal men were strongly preju- The Yale 
diced against the Church, he had great hopes of a "glorious revo- Convcrts 
lution in the ecclesiastics of this country." Some of the chief of 
them, including Cutler, who had by now become President of Yale 
College, and five others, had approached him and expressed their 
determination of declaring for the Church of England as soon as 
they were assured of being supported at home. The necessary as 
surance was given, and in October, 1722, Pigot reported that he 
had attended the Yale Commencement on September 4, where 
Cutler and six others, "in the face of the whole country ... de 
clared themselves in this wise: that they could no longer keep out 
of the Communion of the Holy Catholic Church, and that some 
of them doubted the validity and the rest were persuaded of the 
invalidity of presbyterian ordination in opposition to episcopal." 
The phrase "presbyterian ordination," it should be observed, in 
cluded the ministry of the Congregationalists in New England 
usage. Those fully persuaded of its invalidity were: Cutler; Brown, 
a tutor at Yale; Elliot, pastor at Kenels worth; Johnson, pastor at 
West Haven, and Wetmore, pastor at North Haven. Those doubt 
ing its validity were Hart, of East Guilford, and Whittlesey, of 
Wallingford. Besides these seven, who stated their views in writ 
ing, Buckley, of Colchester, asserted orally that he believed epis 
copacy to be jure divino and Whiting, of "some remoter town," 
declared for "moderate episcopacy." These conversions, of course, 
were not as sudden as they appeared to be. Johnson and Cutler had 
been favorably disposed towards episcopacy for some time, and 
Johnson had discussed the subject with the other converts, most 
of whom were his own age. There is some possibility that Check- 
ley was pardy responsible for the conversion of Cutler, though, 
curiously enough, the achievement is ascribed to him only by his 

Some of the converts later relented but four of them, Timothy 
Cutler, Daniel Brown, Samuel Johnson, and James Wetmore, Three of Them 
went to England shortly afterwards. Brown contracted smallpox Ordained 
there and died, but Cutler, Johnson, and Wetmore were ordained 
and returned to America. Cutler became the first rector of Christ 
Church, Boston, as we have seen, and Johnson succeeded Pigot at 
Stratford, where he served many years, both before he became 
President of King's College and after his retirement. Wetmore 


became missionary at Rye. As might be expected, their conversion 
caused a good deal of consternation among the Puritans. The 
Mathers, at Boston, rallied to the cause and sent circular letters to 
all places in the colony, urging the people to "trace the pious steps 
o their forefathers." When this was answered by printing Win- 
throp's farewell address, referred to in our second chapter, to show 
that their forefathers had not felt so strongly against the Church 
as the Mathers did, the latter replied by pretending to distinguish 
two Churches of England, a high and a low, and to be in com 
munion with the latter. 

The example of the "Yale Converts," as they are commonly 
Growth of the called, was followed by a number of their successors, and the 
Connecticut Puritan college continued, not only throughout the colonial period, 
but well into the nineteenth century, to furnish a steady stream of 
converts to the Episcopal Church. For a time, however, things 
quieted down in Connecticut, and Johnson remained for five years 
the only Episcopal minister in the colony, but this does not mean 
that Stratford was the only place where efforts were being made on 
behalf of the Church. Johnson visited as many of the neighboring 
villages as he could, and in other places laymen exerted themselves 
to organize parishes. In 1727 Henry Caner, who had been acting 
as catechist and schoolmaster at Fairfield, went to England for 
orders and returned in the fall to serve as missionary at that town 
until he was called to King's Chapel twenty years later. As the 
colonial governor was elected by the people, New London, where 
the collector of customs had his headquarters, was the nearest 
approach to a center for royal authority in Connecticut. A church 
was organized there in 1730 and Samuel Seabury, father of the 
future first Bishop of the Church, was sent home for orders that 
he might become their missionary. He also organized parishes at 
Hebron, Simsbury, and Middletown. In 1732 the inhabitants of 
Redding and Newtown petitioned for a minister. John Beach, who 
had been the Congregational minister at the latter place, was or 
dained and sent to them three years later. In 1734 the Puritan min 
ister at North Groton conformed to the Church, bringing some of 
his parishioners with him. He went to England for ordination and 
returned the following year as a missionary of the Society. In 
1736 Jonathan Arnold was sent to West Haven, and a missionary 
was sent to Derby and Wallingford in 1741. Missions were likewise 


organized at Norwalk in 1742, at Stamford in 1747, at New Haven 
in 1752, at Hartford in 1762, and at a number of other villages 
during these years, so that at the outbreak of the Revolution the 
Church of England had twenty ministers in the colony. 

The struggle for religious liberty in Connecticut followed lines 
similar to that in Massachusetts, but the Church obtained recog- Struggle for 
nition at an earlier date. In 1708 the legislature had passed a law 
declaring that the churches subscribing to the "Saybrook Plat 
form," the extreme expression of Congregational Puritanism, 
should be "established," and their ministers supported by taxes 
levied upon all the people. A proviso attached to this act, however, 
specified that persons who differed from the established order 
might hold services in the manner their consciences directed. This 
exemption has been called a "liberal measure" according to the 
standards of the time, but it is difficult to see that it went beyond 
what was required by the English Toleration Act. Its effect upon 
the Church was that, while its clergymen could no longer be 
threatened with prosecution for holding services, as Muirson had 
been, its laity were still required to contribute to the support of 
a hostile ministry. In 1726 Governor Talcott declared that the only 
Church of England minister in the colony (Johnson) was allowed 
the same protection as the Puritan pastors, and his congregation 
was not required to support any other minister; but if this was 
true, the concession was an extra-legal one. In 1727, as the result 
of the petition of Moses Ward, a Churchman of Fairfield, the 
General Court passed an act which provided that whenever mem 
bers of the Church of England lived near enough to a minister of 
that Church to conveniently attend upon his ministrations, and 
did so, the religious taxes paid by them should be turned over for 
his support. 

This law, upon which the later act in Massachusetts was mod 
eled, gave the Episcopal Church approximate religious equality 
in places where it had a settled minister, but it still exposed Epis 
copalians in places not supplied with clergymen to prosecution for 
non-payment of Church taxes, and complaints of such prosecutions 
were not uncommon. This hardship was not removed, either in 
Connecticut or Massachusetts, until the final disestablishment of 
the Congregational Church some years after the Revolution. At 
tempts to evade the law in various ways, as, for example, by paying 


Congregational ministers from the general tax funds, were made 
from time to time by the local authorities, but they were not ordi 
narily supported by the General Court. In 1738, however, that body 
did permit the towns to divert to this purpose the proceeds from 
the sale of some colonial lands, originally intended for the support 
of public schools. Churchmen protested vigorously against this 
measure, on the ground that they, like all other subjects of the 
colony, had a proprietary interest in the lands, and so it was 
repealed two years later. The Episcopalians also petitioned about 
the same time for the right to tax themselves for the support of 
their own ministers, but this was not given them, though the law 
of 1727 had allowed them to levy sufficient taxes to supplement the 
regular rates. 

Whitefield appeared in Connecticut in 1741, and his preaching 
whitefield there produced much the same effect as in Massachusetts, acting, 
in Connecticut p^ap^ as an even g rea ter solvent for the standing order, and pro 
ducing similar excesses. The response of the Church to the move 
ment was the same as in all the other colonies. The ministers 
stedfastly opposed it, and though some Churchmen were at first 
attracted by it, few were permanently carried away. In the reac 
tion, as elsewhere, some converts were made for the Church. 
Whitefield revisited New England in 1764, but his power had 

The decades preceding the Revolution saw the arrival in Con 
necticut of a number of clergymen who were to become leaders of 
the Church both in the state and the nation after the recognition 
of American independence. Jeremiah Learning, who was one of 
the pamphleteers in the controversy over the colonial episcopate, 
and was to be the first choice of the Connecticut clergy for their 
bishop after the Revolution, was appointed missionary to Norwalk 
in 1755, after having served for eight years at Newport, Rhode 
Island, part of the time as schoolmaster and part of the time as 
rector. Samuel Peters, who was to try very hard to be the first 
Bishop of Vermont, appeared at Hebron in 1761. Abraham Jarvis, 
who was to become the second Bishop of Connecticut, was or 
dained in 1763, and sent to Middletown. All of these men were 
natives of the colony. 

Rhode Island, as has already been intimated, was regarded as 
something of a pariah among the New England colonies. It was 



founded by Roger Williams, whose religious views were probably Rhode Island 
as narrow as those of any man on earth, as at one time he was able 
to hold communion only with himself, but who, perhaps because 
of that very narrowness, arrived at the principle of separation of 
Church and State, as a pioneer advocate of which he has attained a 
well-deserved immortality. Williams was at one time associated 
with the Baptists, and they as well as the Quakers became one of 
the strongest religious groups in the colony. The total strength of 
these two groups was estimated in 1710 as including seven-tenths 
of the population, though the Independents controlled the impor 
tant town of Bristol 

The Church of England did not invade the colony until 1700, 
when Bishop Compton sent David Bethune to be minister at 
Newport. He is alleged to have had with him a "kinsman" who, 
like the Poet of Sierra Flat, turned out to be of the opposite sex, 
but this report does not come from a very reliable source. Anyway, 
he departed in 1702, and was succeeded by John Lockier, a devout 
and conscientious minister, who made a good beginning, but 
unfortunately died after he had been in the colony only two years. 
The vestry thereupon applied to Lord Cornbury, the governor of 
New York, to send them a clergyman, and he dispatched the Rev. 
James Honeyman, whose labors proved highly acceptable to the 
majority of the people. He had, however, been innocently involved 
in some scandals in New York, and for this reason, or, at least, 
with this as an excuse, a faction in the parish opposed him. 

Their opposition might not have been serious, but in 1707 the 
Society sent Christopher Bridge, who had just finished making 
trouble in Boston, to Narragansett, Rhode Island. Bridge had not 
been long at his station when he decided that Honeyman's was 
better, and set to work to supplant him. In this he nearly suc 
ceeded, for Secretary Chamberlayne of the Society had never ap 
proved of Honeyman's going to Newport, and was partial to 
Bridge. All of the neighboring clergy, however, and several prom 
inent laymen, including Colonel Heathcote, and Colonel Robert 
Quarry, Her Majesty's Surveyor-General of the Customs and one 
of the founders of Christ Church, Philadelphia, rallied to Honey 
man's support, and their protests, seconded by the Bishop of 
London, eventually overcame Chamberlayne's prejudices. Honey- 
man was allowed to continue a distinguished and useful ministry 

at Newport 


that was to last for forty years. The wagging tongues were finally 
silenced by his marriage to a respectable local woman in 1711. 

As Bridge could hardly be expected to remain next door to 
Honeyman after his defeat, he was sent elsewhere, and Narra- 
gansett was supplied only by such services as Honeyman could give 
it until 1716 when William Guy was sent there. He remained only 
two years, and then departed for South Carolina. The parish might 
have suffered another long vacancy, had it not happened that 
James McSparran, an Independent minister at Bristol, became 
converted to the Church in 1719. His former brethren held a con 
ference on his case and hurled a few libels after him, but these 
were not taken very seriously in England and he was presently 
ordained and sent to Narragansett, with permission to preach 
occasionally at Bristol. Like Honeyman, he lived to have a long 
and useful ministry, though he handicapped himself by getting 
involved in an interminable suit over some lands in Narragansett, 
which had been set apart for the support of a minister without 
specifying his denomination. 

McSparran's work at Bristol soon led to the organization of a 
Growth of the parish there, and in 1722 James Orem was sent over as missionary. 
^ e rema i ne d only a few months, however, before accepting an 
appointment as chaplain of the King's forces in New York, and 
the parish remained vacant until 1726, when John Usher, a convert 
from Harvard College, began a ministry of fifty-two years there. 
Honeyman had been preaching at Providence for several years, 
and had recommended sending a missionary, but his suggestion 
was not complied with until 1724, when the Society appointed 
George Pigot, late of Stratford, Connecticut, to the post. He got 
into a dispute with his vestry, because he insisted on living on a 
farm outside of town, though he apparently had an adequate 
salary, and resigned in 1728. The next minister sent there got into 
trouble when a woman claiming to be his wife arrived in Boston 
just as he was about to be married to a local lady. He left shortly 
afterwards, and was succeeded by Arthur Browne, who remained 
until 1736, when he went to Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Check- 
ley was sent to Providence, after his ordination in 1738, on 
Browne's recommendation. The latter's son, Marmaduke Browne, 
after serving for a time as an itinerant in New Hampshire, was 


appointed missionary at Newport in 1761. A church was founded 
at Warwick in 1758. 

We have seen in an earlier chapter how Churchmen made the 
first settlements in Maine and New Hampshire, and how the N 
Church was presently smothered by the spread of the Puritan Hampshire 
power into those colonies. The first point at which it began to 
show signs of renewed life in the eighteenth century was Ports 
mouth, New Hampshire, where the surveyor-general and some 
other royal officers were stationed. In 1734 a parish was organ 
ized there and the people petitioned to have Arthur Browne 
transferred to them from Providence. This petition, which Browne 
seconded, was granted, and he began work at the new station in 
1736. At this time New Hampshire was still under the jurisdiction 
of the governor of Massachusetts, and the lieutenant-governor, 
who ruled in his name, seems to have been unfriendly, or at least 
indifferent, to the Church. In 1741, however, the colonies were 
separated, and Benning Wentworth began his long career as gov 
ernor of New Hampshire. Under him the Church was never 
without a powerful and loyal supporter in the colony. 

Browne preached, whenever he could find time, in some of the 
other communities around Portsmouth, and in 1745 he started 
churches at Barrington and Nottingham. Browne's son, after 
his ordination, acted as an itinerant missionary, serving these 
and other stations, until his appointment to Newport left his father 
once more the only Church of England minister in the colony. 
Young Browne was not replaced until 1767, but after that date 
an itinerant was maintained in the colony until the beginning of 
the Revolution. Arthur Browne died in 1773, and by the time his 
successor was appointed the war had broken out, and it was im 
possible to reach Portsmouth. 

Maine, in spite of its early foundation, remained a frontier local 
ity throughout the colonial period. The first missionary to do any Maine 
work there was Jacob Bailey, who was sent over in 1761, after an 
earlier appointee, William McClennachan, had decided that the 
post was unworthy of his homiletical abilities and had gone south 
ward in an attempt to electioneer for the position of assistant at 
Christ Church, Philadelphia. Bailey continued for some years as an 
itinerant in the colony, serving Georgetown, Harpswell, Bruns 
wick, and other villages near the mouth of the Kennebec, as well 


Church Life 
in New 

as Pownalborough (Pownal), a few miles further west. He was 
also probably responsible for the organization of the church at 
Falmouth, a village on Casco Bay not far from Portland, which 
in 1764 agreed with John Wiswall, a local Congregational minister, 
that he should go home for orders and become their rector, a post 
which he continued to hold until the Revolution. In 1768 Wiswall 
complained that his people were taxed to support the local Inde 
pendent minister, though this was long after Churchmen had been 
exempted from these taxes by the Massachusetts law, which should 
have extended to Maine. 

The general characteristics of New England Churchmanship 
differed in a number of ways from those which were to be found 
in the South. The New England ministers were, for the most 
part, native colonials and converts to the Church from Puritanism, 
and, except for the small party which surrounded the assistant at 
King's Chapel, as an almost inevitable result of his position, they 
were a fairly harmonious group. As might be expected of converts 
and missionaries who were obliged to commend the Church to a 
hostile population, they were generally in sympathy with the party 
which laid the greatest stress upon her distinctive teachings and 
institutions. Samuel Johnson, it is true, thought that some modi 
fication in the external usages of the Church might be permitted 
to adapt it to colonial conditions. He thought it rather a mockery 
to enjoin sponsors in baptism to bring their godchildren to the 
Bishop for confirmation when such a proceeding was impossible, 
and he approved of allowing candidates for orders to read service, 
in view of the shortage of ministers. Certain it is, however, that 
he did not desire any serious modification in principle, and most of 
the missionaries indeed would never have gone as far as he did. 
Communion was generally celebrated once a month in New Eng 
land, and the regular holidays of the Church were faithfully kept. 
These latter observances at first gave some offense to the Puritans, 
who disapproved of any stated feasts or fasts, but at a later time 
we find it frequently reported that many outsiders attended the 
services on such days. 

We probably should not leave this region finally without taking 
some note of the pamphlet controversies which attended the 
growth of the Church there. Of the disputes associated with the 
name of Checkley we have already said as much as is necessary, 



and the debates which arose from the efforts to obtain a colonial Controversies 
episcopate will be considered in a later chapter, but there were 
some occasional scrimmages which cannot be placed in either of 
these classes. In 1731 George Pigot, then at Marblehead, published 
a pamphlet vindicating the observance of Christmas from the 
attacks made upon it by John Barnard, the local Congregational 
minister. The next year, Jonathan Dickinson, a Puritan clergy 
man, published a defense of "Presbyterian Ordination" which 
involved him in a controversy with Arthur Browne of Providence 
and Samuel Johnson of Stratford. In 1736 the same gentleman 
printed a sermon on The Vanity of Human Institutions in the 
Worship of God in which he condemned the usages of the Church 
of England. This was answered by John Beach, the missionary at 
Newtown and Redding, Connecticut. In 1745 Samuel Johnson 
published A Letter from Aristodes to Authades^ attacking the 
Calvinistic theory of predestination, and was answered by Dickin 
son and supported by Beach. In 1746 some strictures on the Church 
in a sermon by the Rev. Noah Hobart were answered by James 
Wetmore, the missionary at Rye. Hobart answered this in a small 
volume and was in turn replied to by Johnson and Beach. In 1752 
James McSparran of Narragansett, published a sermon which was 
designed to check the practice of permitting candidates for Holy 
Orders to read service. This was interpreted by the Puritans as an 
attack on their orders and was replied to by several of them. 




WAS not merely in a geographic sense that the Middle 
Their Colonies were "middle." They represented also a mingling of the 

characteristics soc i a l anc [ political characteristics o the two extremes, though it 
should be observed that the individual colonies did not necessarily 
resemble most closely the section they were nearest. Thus, in New 
York, with its partial Establishment, the position of the Church 
was more nearly like that of the South than in Pennsylvania where 
it enjoyed no special privileges at all. New York also resembled 
the South more nearly in the number of its slaves which, while not 
so great as in the tobacco colonies, was still large enough to be a 
serious factor in the population. On the other hand, in New York, 
as in New England, the Church had to contend mainly with Inde 
pendents and Presbyterians, whereas in Pennsylvania the chief 
opponents were the Quakers. Moreover, the type of Churchman- 
ship prevailing in Pennsylvania seems to have been less predomi 
nantly "high" than in New York. 

We have previously traced the first appearance of the Church 
New York in New York, insofar as it was represented by the chaplain at the 
fort, and we have also noted that it was apparently the policy of 
the English government after 1689 to secure the Establishment of 
the Church in all colonies which had not been founded in the 
interest of dissent. In New York this purpose was expressed in the 
instructions given to Colonel Sloughter, the first governor to be 
sent out by the new government, in 1690. Sloughter endeavored to 
carry out these orders and in 1691 succeeded in getting a bill in 
troduced into the Assembly for settling a regular ministry in the 
Province, but it was rejected "as not answering the intention of 
the House." Sloughter died shortly after this, and the effort had 
to be renewed by his successor, Benjamin Fletcher. A bill intro 
duced in 1692 was not acted upon before the end of the session, 



but in 1693 Fletcher urged the matter so strongly that the Assem 
bly felt obliged to do something about it. It accordingly passed 
an act which provided that a "sufficient Protestant minister" should Act of 
be settled in the county of New York within a year, another in Establishment 
Richmond County (Staten Island), two in Westchester, and two 
more in Queen's County on Long Island. No provision was made 
for King's County (Brooklyn), Dutchess, Orange, and Albany 
counties, which were predominantly Dutch, nor for Suffolk 
County, where the people were nearly all Independents. Fletcher 
objected to the act because it did not specifically give him the right 
to induct, but, as he was unable to have it amended, he finally 
signed it. 

The intention of the legislature in passing this law has long been 
the subject of debate. The phrase "sufficient Protestant minister" 
in English legal usage meant a minister of the Established Church, 
but as the Assembly was then controlled by the Dutch and the 
dissenters, they may have hoped that the phrase would be inter 
preted in the colonies as applying to any orthodox Protestant min 
ister. This supposition is strengthened by their unwillingness to 
give the power of induction to the governor, whose instructions 
obliged him to appoint only ministers licensed by the Bishop of 
London, but, on the other hand, the fact that no provision was 
made for Suffolk County, where dissent was strongest, would 
suggest that they recognized at least a possibility that the ministers 
introduced under the act would be those of the Church. More 
over, the Dutch members of the Assembly probably did not care 
a great deal what variety of English minister was introduced into 
the colony. Their relations with the Church were at least as cor 
dial as with any other denomination. 

The act had further provided that the freeholders in each county 
should annually elect ten vestrymen and two wardens who were, 
by taxation, to raise one hundred pounds for the support of the 
ministry, regardless of whether one or two clergymen were em 
ployed, and who should also have the power of hiring the min 
isters. When the first vestry was elected in New York County it 
was composed of dissenters, and for a time it refused to take any 
action at all. Finally, prodded by the governor, it called William 
Vesey, who had been serving as an Independent minister at Hemp- 
stead. Moreover, it addressed the Assembly as to the propriety of 



of Trinity 


its action, and was informed that it had a perfect right to call a 
dissenting minister. Fletcher then prorogued the Assembly to pre 
vent its taking any further steps in the matter. 

While the question was still in abeyance, Colonel Heathcote, 
Lewis Morris, and other influential members of the Church made 
preparations to secure the benefits of the act for her in spite of both 
the Assembly and the freeholders. The chapel in the fort which 
had previously been used for the services of the Church of England 
was in a ruinous condition, and so these Churchmen, with the 
governor's aid, secured from the Assembly permission to re 
build it outside of the fort. In the spring of 1697, when their build 
ing had been enclosed, though not entirely finished, they applied 
to the governor for a charter of incorporation, and also prayed 
that, as the operation of the Act of 1693 had been delayed by the 
want of a suitable building, and as that want was now about to be 
supplied through their own efforts, they might be given control 
of the money raised by the County Vestry under that act. With 
these requests the governor complied, and, as he had previously 
placated the most influential element in the Assembly by granting 
a liberal charter to the Dutch Church, no opposition was made 
from that quarter. Thus the Church vestry became, in effect, the 
controlling ecclesiastical power and the County Vestry was re 
duced to the status of an agency for raising funds. Moreover, sub 
sequent elections to that body had proven more favorable to the 
Church, and in 1696 Churchmen formed a majority of its members. 

Having thus passed under Church control, the County Vestry 
renewed the call to Vesey in 1696, but this time upon the condi 
tion of his going to England for ordination, a condition with 
which he readily complied. The considerations which led to his 
compliance are not known ever to have been stated by him, and 
so any explanation of them must be entirely conjectural, but it 
should be observed that his conduct did not necessarily indicate 
a time-serving spirit. From the time of the "judicious Hooker," 
there have always been many eminent divines of the Church of 
England who, while holding episcopacy to be of Apostolic origin, 
have not been prepared to declare that it was absolutely essential 
to a valid ministry. If Vesey, who seems to have come from a 
Church family, were of this school- and what later evidence we 
have as to his views makes it seem probable he may have felt 



justified in exercising his ministry without episcopal ordination at 
a time when it probably seemed impossible to obtain it, and yet 
have felt it his duty to procure such ordination when a way opened 
for him to do so. 

Whatever his motives may have been, Vesey was ordained by 
the Bishop of London in August, 1697, and on his return to the 
colony was duly recommended to Governor Fletcher, and by him 
appointed as "assistant" to the Bishop, who, by the Charter of 
1697, had been made titular rector of Trinity Parish. As the interior 
of the new building was not yet finished, Vesey officiated for a 
time in the Dutch Church on Garden Street, and two of the Dutch 
ministers assisted at his induction on Christmas Day, 1697. 

The ministry that thus commenced was to last for forty-nine 
years and be marked by great fruitfulness. The Establishment Growth of 
Act led to a prolonged conflict in some of the other parts of the 
colony, as we shall see presently, but the arrangement worked out 
in New York, in spite of its doubtful regularity, met with very 
little opposition once it was set in operation, probably because the 
Churchmen rapidly became the predominant element in the city's 
population. Vesey J s habitual moderation and the integrity and 
piety of his character also did much to reconcile to his ministry 
such of the dissenters as were not irrevocably opposed to every 
thing associated with episcopacy. Governor Cornbury caused a 
temporary flare-up of hostility by his persecution of two Presby 
terian ministers, Mackenzie and Hampton, early in the century, but 
the excitement passed over, though the development of the Pres 
byterian Church which followed created a more definite source of 
opposition than had hitherto existed. In 1714, when a group of 
ruffians broke into the church, desecrated the vestments and scat 
tered the furnishings, the ministers of the French and Dutch 
Churches vigorously expressed their detestation of the deed. At 
the same time lampoons of Vesey and the Church appeared in the 
streets, but they do not appear to have been the work of any 
definite party. More probably they were produced by idle 

In 1717, Robert Jenney, subsequently rector of Christ Church, 
Philadelphia, was sent as a schoolmaster and assistant to Trinity 
Church, in which position he continued until 1722 when the Soci 
ety appointed him missionary at Rye. He was succeeded by James 



Rectors and 


Wetmore, one of the "Yale Converts," who had originally been 
intended for Staten Island, and who in turn succeeded him at Rye 
four years later. In 1704 whatever irregularity had existed in the 
parochial charter was removed through its being confirmed by a 
special act of the Assembly, and in 1705 the tract of land known 
variously as the "Duke's Farm," the "King's Farm," and the 
"Queen's Farm," the use of which had originally been granted to 
Trinity by Governor Fletcher, was fully transferred to the parish 
by a royal gift. This land, which now covers a large section of 
downtown New York, has been the chief source of Trinity's 
wealth, and has also been the source of some fat pickings for 
shyster lawyers. Though a few lots have had to be sold from time 
to time as the parish finances became straitened, the bulk of it has 
been kept intact. 

Vesey died in 1746 and was succeeded by the Rev. Henry Bar 
clay, who had been a missionary to the Indians west of Albany. 
Under his rectorate the first chapel of the parish, St. George's, was 
built in 1752. It is now an independent parish. The second chapel, 
St. Paul's, which was completed in 1766, has remained a part of 
the parish, and the original structure, which is still standing, is the 
oldest church building in New York City. Its interior has been 
considerably changed, however. 

After Barclay's death in 1764 he was succeeded by the Rev. 
Samuel Auchmuty, who had been his assistant for some time, and 
the Rev. Charles Inglis, former missionary at Dover, Delaware, 
was chosen to assist Auchmuty. Inglis was one of the few ministers 
of the Church, in America or elsewhere, to be blessed with the 
approval of George Whitefield, and his "Methodist" leanings 
commended him to a portion of the congregation. The rector felt 
that Inglis' talents would be more useful elsewhere, but accepted 
him for the sake of peace. Inglis changed his sentiments, appar 
ently, as time went on, for in his later years he was regarded as a 
High Churchman. He became rector of the parish in 1775 and so 
continued throughout the Revolution, but left with the British 
evacuation, to become, after a short time, the first bishop of Nova 

Though, as we have seen, the Act of 1693 provided for the set 
tling of ministers in Westchester, on Staten Island, and in one 
county on Long Island, no ministers were actually sent to any of 



these places until after the arrival of Lord Cornbury as governor 
in 1702. That individual, a degenerate and pervert, who is said to 
have spent half of his time dressed in women's clothes, was one 
of the most despicable of the colonial governors, a class that cannot 
be said, as a whole, to have set a very high standard either of de 
cency or integrity. Because he desired to retain the favor of Queen 
Anne, or for some other reason, he was, however, a vigorous sup 
porter of the Church, which sometimes, in fact, suffered from the 
excess of his zeal. 

In Westchester his efforts were seconded by the more reputable 
Heathcote, and it is probably because the latter had already re- Col.Heath- 

duced that county to some semblance of ecclesiastical order that "! te ai ? d 5*^ 
^-> i T i T t /- / 1 /- Church in 

Cornbury sent John Bartow, the nrst of the Society s missionaries, Westchester 

there in 1702. Heathcote, in an account of the origin of the Church 
in Westchester which he later supplied to the Society, said that, as 
there had been no minister of any description there for some time, 
a general disregard of the Sabbath came to prevail. To put a stop 
to this, he let it be known that unless the people of the various 
communities appointed "readers" and observed the day as best 
they could, he would direct the captains of the militia to drill 
their companies on Sunday. This dreary prospect was sufficient to 
cause the appointment of some lay readers and in time a few dis 
senting ministers from New England made their appearance. In 
the village of Westchester the people liked one of these ministers 
so well that they requested Heathcote to use his influence to get 
him inducted. Heathcote replied that this was impossible, and 
diplomatically suggested that they call the Rev. Daniel Bondet, 
a French minister then at Boston, who had been episcopally or 
dained, to supply the French church at New Rochelle and their 
own, at the same time retaining the other minister and supporting 
him as well as they could. As the latter raised some objections to 
this scheme, Heathcote contrived to persuade him that it would be 
advisable to leave the county. The wily Colonel then proceeded, 
with the aid of Vesey and Bondet, to build up the Church in his 
dominion by winning over as many as he could of the chief men 
in every community. 

Westchester village at first offered some rather vigorous oppo 
sition to Heathcote's plans, but by the time of Bartow's arrival it 
had been sufficiently tamed so that it accepted his ministry without 


serious protest. The neighboring village of Eastchester was dis 
posed, at first, to raise some difficulties, but Lord Cornbury soon 
put an end to that, and Bartow found himself fairly in possession 
of the field. Of this missionary Lewis Morris wrote in 1707 that 
he was "a very good man, and of exemplary life, but . . . very 
inactive.' 1 Morris's judgments, however, were seldom impartial, 
and it is possible that at this time he was annoyed at Colonel 
Heathcote or happened to have some other reason for being dissat 
isfied with the state of affairs in Westchester. As a result of his 
charges Bartow was suspended from the Society's service, but was 
presently reinstated on the recommendation of others, and contin 
ued at his post so long as to be the oldest missionary in the 
Society's service after the dismissal of Talbot in 1725. 

It will be remembered that the Church Act provided for the set- 
Thc Church tlement of two ministers in Westchester County. The second min- 
atRyc j gter to |_ )e sent there was Thomas Pritchard who, in 1704, was 

stationed at Rye whence he also served Bedford and Mamaroneck. 
He committed suicide, or was murdered, and was replaced by 
George Muirson, whose pioneer work in Connecticut has already 
attracted our attention. His labors in New York appear to have 
been equally useful, but he died three years after his arrival, and 
the parish was then vacant until 1710, when Christopher Bridge 
was appointed to it. This gentleman we also met when we were 
in New England, where we found him something of a trouble 
maker. Two rebukes to his ambition had, however, been sufficient, 
and during the nine years that elapsed before his death he served 
quietly and conscientiously at his post in Rye. Bondet, who re 
mained at New Rochelle after Bartow had taken over the work 
at Westchester, made a third minister in the county during the 
early years of the century. He was supported by the voluntary 
contributions of the French colony, supplemented after a time by 
aid from the Society. 

After Bridge's death, the parish at Rye remained vacant for 
three years until Robert Jenney was sent there, as has already 
been noted. On his being transferred to Long Island in 1726, James 
Wetmore was sent to Rye and the parish began to enjoy the 
benefit of his long and useful ministry. In 1728 he reported that he 
had found many whole families unbaptized and many more with 
several adult members unbaptized, but as he reported two years 



later that the Quakers were causing trouble in his parish, it is pos 
sible that this situation was due to their influence and not to any 
negligence on the part of his predecessors. In 1729 the people of 
White Plains brought suit against the officers appointed to collect 
the ecclesiastical taxes, but it was decided in favor of the Church. 
Thereafter the Church settlement in Westchester continued undis 
turbed until the Revolution. In time the local support became suf 
ficient so that the Society discontinued its stipends. 

Long Island, except that part of it which was nearest to Man 
hattan, was settled largely from Connecticut, and it was there that Long Island 
the dissenting interest was strongest. In the most eastern part of 
the island, which was included in Suffolk County, no attempt 
was made to establish the Church at all, and it was not introduced 
there until a few of the inhabitants got together voluntarily and 
petitioned for a missionary. In King's County, on the western nose 
of the island, no attempt at an establishment was made, either, 
because the population was largely Dutch. The Act of 1693 had, 
however, provided for the settlement of two "sufficient Protestant 
ministers" in Queen's County, which lay in between the other 
two, and it was here that the dispute over the application of the 
act waged most bitterly. 

The controversy centered in the village of Jamaica, where one 
of the ministers appointed under the act was to be located. In that Controversy at 
town the dissenters, who constituted most of the population, had J amaica 
called a minister of their own and started to build a church. 
When the act for settling the ministry was passed, they stopped 
building, and the church was completed and a parsonage built by 
the local vestry elected under the act. This body was composed of 
dissenters, and in 1702 it called a dissenting minister to the parish. 
In the same year, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 
sent a missionary to Jamaica, but he died before he could be in 
ducted. James Honeyman was next sent there, and remained a 
short time but presently became the subject of evil reports. These 
were eventually shown to be unfounded, but Honeyman was 
removed and sent by Cornbury to Newport. He was replaced by 
William Urquhart whom the governor formally inducted in 1704. 
Having done this, Cornbury ordered the dissenting minister to 
yield the church and parsonage to Urquhart. This was an arbi 
trary proceeding, since the right to their possession had never been 


legally determined, and it became a source of complaint on the 
part of the governor's enemies, but was complied with for the 
time being and given an ex post facto legality by an act of the 
Assembly in 1706. 

Urquhart remained in possession of the property until his death, 
but during the vacancy which followed the dissenters again seized 
both church and parsonage, and some justices of the peace who 
fined them for taking the former were dismissed. In 1710 the local 
vestry called another dissenting minister, and in the same year the 
Church minister designated for the post, the Rev. Thomas Poyer, 
arrived in the colony. Robert Hunter, who was then governor, was 
probably as much concerned for the interests of the Church as 
Cornbury had been, but he was more scrupulous as to the means 
he used to promote them. He told Poyer that the only legal 
method to obtain either the property or his salary was to bring 
suit for them in the colonial courts, and the governor offered to 
bear the costs of the action himself. Poyer, however, was not pre 
pared to take such a measure without consulting the authorities 
at home. When they learned of the situation they advised him not 
to commence the suit until he was sure of having it tried before 
favorable judges, or until they had obtained an instruction from 
the Queen, which was presently granted, directing the governor 
to admit appeals to himself and Council in suits for any amount 
where the Church was a party, as, normally, such appeals were 
allowed only in cases involving one hundred pounds or more. 

This hesitation caused a long delay, during which Poyer was 
Its Conclusion without parsonage or salary (except his stipend from the Society), 
and was so unpopular that the local miller refused to grind his 
grain, telling him to eat it whole, as the hogs did. Eventually, 
however, Poyer was authorized to start a suit for his salary, and 
after having been lost in the lower court, the case was finally de 
cided in favor of the Church by Chief Justice Morris in 1723, 
though Poyer experienced some difficulty in collecting the arrears. 
The right to the church building was made a separate issue, 
probably because the structure had been begun by the dissenters 
before the passage of the Act of Establishment, and a jury under 
Morris subsequently decided that it belonged to the Presbyterians. 
The Episcopalians were thereby forced to meet in the town house 


for a while, but in a short time they succeeded in building another 

At Hempstead, where the other minister appointed for Queen's 
County was located, the opposition to the Church was less bitter Hempstead 
and less prolonged. This was partly because the dissenters had 
not been organized there before a Church minister was sent 
among them, and partly, it is probable, because of the moderation 
and prudence of the one who was sent. John Thomas, who was 
appointed to the post in 1704, was rebuked by Secretary Chamber- 
layne, early in his career, for boasting of the stubborn dissenters 
he had won over instead of the stubborn heathen he should have 
converted a sensitivity on this point seldom displayed by the 
Secretaries but he was by no means the fanatical Churchman 
that this rebuke might seem to imply. On the contrary, if he won 
over the dissenters it was by his moderation and his readiness to 
go as far as he could in making allowance for their prejudices, 
not by any vigorous insistence upon the exclusive claims of the 
Church. In 1705 he reported that, though he had had less trouble 
than his colleague at Jamaica, everything depended upon the sup 
port of the governor, but he soon established himself sufficiently 
in the favor of his people so that he was not molested when Corn- 
bury was recalled. As he enjoyed a long life and was not trans 
ferred, the parish was saved from those frequent vacancies which 
served as occasions for renewing the dispute between Churchmen 
and dissenters at Jamaica. 

After the settlement of the Jamaica dispute, the growth of the 
Church in the county was steady but quiet, and there are few 
striking occurrences in its subsequent history. After the death of 
Thomas, Jenney served for a time as missionary at Hempstead 
and was succeeded by Samuel Seabury, the elder, who so en 
deared himself to the people that they built a house for his widow 
after his death. His son served for a time as minister at Jamaica, 
until he was transferred to Westchester in 1766. 

In 1724 some residents of Brookhaven, in Suffolk County, peti 
tioned for a minister, and a few years later Alexander Campbell 
was sent to them. He was convicted of gross immorality, however, 
and was removed. His successor, Isaac Browne, during a long and 
devoted ministry built up a thriving parish. 

The early history of the Church on Staten Island was also 


Staten Island marked with controversy, but most of the disputes were among 
the Churchmen themselves, not between them and the dissenters. 
Under the first missionary, the Rev. Aeneas Mackenzie, the prog 
ress of the Church was peaceable and encouraging. In 1715 Gov 
ernor Hunter incorporated the parish by letters patent, and the 
next year Mackenzie reported that a church and parsonage 
had been built and a glebe purchased, entirely by voluntary 

After Mackenzie's death this peaceful development was inter 
rupted. In 1723 the wardens and vestry of the local church (St. 
Andrew's) elected Robert Weyman to be their rector, and in the 
same year Governor Burnet appointed William Harrison to the 
post and the Society sent James Wetmore there. These men were 
all Church ministers, and likewise men of good character who 
were the victims of the conflicting schemes of others rather than 
of any misconduct of their own, but, as the parish could support 
only one minister, two of them had to be disappointed. It was 
finally agreed that Harrison should remain on Staten Island, 
without any aid from the Society, and that Wetmore should be 
appointed assistant at Trinity, New York. Weyman was sent 

Harrison continued an acceptable ministry on the island, and 
in 1735 was restored to the Society's pay-roll. He also shared in the 
labor of starting the church at Newark, New Jersey. His successor 
got into a dispute with the vestry over the right to sell wood from 
the parish land and resigned, but under the two ministers who 
followed, the Church enjoyed a long period of peaceful develop 
ment only interrupted in 1762 when Lord Amherst caused his 
troops to camp on the glebe, which resulted in great damage to 
the church property. 

Though Albany had not been included in the act for settling 
Albany ministers, a missionary, the Rev. Thomas Barclay, was sent there 

in 1709, the Society's stipend being supplemented by an allowance 
from the English government, given because Barclay's services 
would benefit the soldiers who were stationed at that frontier post, 
and also, it is possible, in the hope that he would be able to coun 
teract the efforts of the French missionaries to win over the Iro- 
quois. Some work had already been done among these Indians by 
Dutch ministers, and Barclay, though with difficulty, succeeded in 


persuading the converts to accept the Church of England. Some 
of the Dutch were also won over by being told that the doctrine of 
the Church was substantially the same as theirs. In 1713 Barclay 
wrote that he had succeeded in inducing three of the leading 
families of the region the Schuylers, the van Rensselaers, and the 
Livingstons to accept his ministry. The last-named family, or part 
of it, subsequently became Presbyterian, however. Barclay is said 
by a later missionary to have suffered from a hasty temper, but he 
worked hard and with fair success until 1722, when he went mad. 
He was not replaced until 1728 when John Miln was sent to the 
village, which he found "beyond expectation polite and large," 
with a population of about one thousand, most of whom, however, 
were Dutch Calvinists. Barclay had succeeded in having a church 
built before his collapse. He had also worked among the Mohawk 
Indians with some success, and Miln made a practice of visiting 
them four times a year until 1735 when Henry Barclay, a son of 
Thomas, was sent to work among them. Thereafter, missionaries 
were generally maintained both at Albany and at the Mohawk 
Castle, though for a few years during the later sixties both stations 
were united under the Rev. Henry Munro. Some residents of 
Dutchess County petitioned for a missionary in 1766, and one was 
presently sent to Poughkeepsie. 

In 1710 Governor Hunter acquired some lands in the colony as 
a speculation, and endeavored to settle them with some Germans German 
from the Palatinate, whose elector was driving many of his sub- Settlers 
jects out by his efforts to bring his dominion back to Roman 
Catholicism. Hunter's experiment was a tragic failure, and after 
a period of starvation the surviving Palatines drifted into Penn 
sylvania and the other colonies to the southward. In religion the 
settlers were divided between Lutheranism and Calvinism, and 
while they were in the colony the Calvinists agreed to conform to 
the Church, but the Lutherans refused to do so. 

The founding of King's College (now Columbia) was largely 
the work of Churchmen. It remained under Church control until King's 
well after the Revolution, and the shadow of this control still College 
persists. Talk of the project probably began with the century, but 
it was not until 1746 that the legislature authorized the formation 
of a lottery to raise money for the purpose. The money thus ob 
tained was placed in the hands of a board of trustees of whom 


a majority were Churchmen, and was supplemented by the gift of 
a large tract of land from Trinity Church. A condition of the 
latter gift was that the president of the College should always be 
a communicant of the Church, and that the services of the Book 
of Common Prayer should always be used in the chapel. Accord 
ing to a statement made by the vestry, the reason for this specifica 
tion was that an effort had been made by some to exclude all 
religious teaching from the College. Whatever its motives, the gift 
roused some opposition to the College among the dissenters, espe 
cially the Presbyterians. 

Nevertheless, the Assembly continued to show some favor to 
the College. In 1753 it passed an act appointing trustees and in 
the same year it appropriated five hundred pounds out of the excise 
duties for the next seven years to the College. In 1754 the College 
was given a royal charter. It had started operations earlier in the 
same year under Dr. Samuel Johnson, late of Stratford, who was 
probably at that time the most learned of the colonial clergy. He 
continued in office until 1762, when he was succeeded by the Rev. 
Myles Cooper, a gifted if somewhat facetious Englishman, who 
had been a tutor at the College the year before, and who continued 
as president until the Revolution drove him out and changed the 
name of the College from King's to Columbia. 

In 1762 James Jay was sent to England to raise money for the 
College. When he arrived, he found the Rev. William Smith on 
the ground seeking funds for the institution at Philadelphia, of 
which he was the head. Smith was annoyed at the intrusion, but 
Archbishop Seeker persuaded him of the advisability of joining 
forces with Jay, and the two of them obtained a royal "brief 
under which they could have collections made in the churches of 
England if the rectors were willing. The King also granted ,400 
to King's College and ^200 to the College at Philadelphia, the 
reason for the discrimination being that the latter had another 
patron in Thomas Penn, the proprietor. The joint collection was 
fairly successful, bringing ^5,937 to each institution. 

If we have lingered too long over the history of the Church in 

Pennsylvania New York, our excuse must be found in its complex character. 

As the Church developed along different lines in each of the 

leading counties, it is necessary to go into some detail in order 

to make the subject clear. The story of Pennsylvania, though not 


less important, is considerably simpler. That colony, as everyone 
knows, was founded by William Penn, partly as a real estate specu 
lation and partly as a refuge for Quakers. Both objects required 
the exercise of general toleration in matters of religion, and such 
a toleration was provided for from the start. Moreover, as has al 
ready been mentioned, the freedom of the members of the Church 
of England to worship in their own way in the colony had been 
secured by a special clause in the proprietary charter. 

Nevertheless, though the Church did not suffer any persecution 
in Pennsylvania, its relations with the proprietor were not alto 
gether devoid of friction. Its supporters complained, though 
whether justly or not it is difficult to say, that Penn electioneered 
with the people to make them vote for Quaker candidates, and 
further discriminated against Churchmen by allowing the courts 
to refuse oaths even to those who wished to take them. Later on, 
they also complained of not being allowed to bear arms. On the 
other hand, Penn protested that the ministers of the Church 
preached too much against Quaker principles, "as if ... they 
would stir up their people against those whose tenderness admits 
them into shares in the administration to turn them out," and he 
added, "We cannot yet be so self-denying as to let those that had 
no part of the heat of the day, not one third of the number and 
not one fourth of the estate, and not one tenth of the trouble and 
labour . . . give laws to us and make us dissenters, and worse 
than that in our own country." In later years, the colony was 
pretty definitely divided into a Quaker and an anti-Quaker party, 
with Churchmen supplying most of the leadership of the latter, 
but the issues between them were only secondarily religious, and 
related chiefly to such questions as the defense of the frontier a 
matter in which scruples of the Quakers always caused a good 
deal of difficulty and the support due to the proprietors, who 
by then had become Churchmen. 

The opinion has been expressed by a recent historian of Penn 
sylvania, Charles P. Keith, that "Probably from the time that the organizatio 
English took possession of the town of New Castle in October, of Christ 
1664, stipulating that all the conquered should, as formerly, enjoy church 
the liberty of their conscience in Church discipline, there was al 
ways some person on the western shore of Delaware River and 
Bay who acknowledged belonging to the Church of England." 


The same authority thinks that the first minister of the Church to 
go into the region was the Rev, John Yeo, whom we have already 
mentioned in connection with the founding of the Church in 
Maryland, and who came from that colony into the settlements 
along the Delaware in 1677 and held services for some months 
during the ensuing year. This was before the actual founding of 
the colony of Pennsylvania, which was not chartered until 1680, 
and we must skip eighteen years before we find the formal begin 
ning of the Church in that province, for it was not until 1694-5, 
that the Churchmen at Philadelphia began to associate together 
with a view to organizing a parish. They may have been stimu 
lated to this partly by the example and prompting of Governor 
Francis Nicholson and Secretary Thomas Lawrence of Maryland, 
but the movement probably had a local origin also. It was about 
this time that George Keith withdrew from the fold of orthodox 
Quakerism and began his progress toward the Church, and the 
religious unrest which resulted probably led the Churchmen to 
think about the desirability of making provision for their own 
needs. While their Church was being built, they made use for a 
time of the Keithian meeting-house, but few of their number, pos 
sibly only one, were converts from Quakerism. 

The name of the first minister of Christ Church, as the parish 
Evan Evans thus organized came to be called, is not known. It would seem 
that for a time the Church people were kept together through the 
work of I. Arrowsmith, a schoolmaster sent by Nicholson, who 
was probably, like most Church of England schoolmasters, in 
deacon's orders, and that the services of a priest were occasionally 
supplied from Maryland. In 1697, having completed their church 
building, the congregation asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to 
supply them with a minister, and sent Colonel Robert Quarry to 
England to support their petition. The request was favorably re 
ceived, and the Rev. Thomas Clayton was sent among them. He 
lived only two years after his arrival, but during that time he 
worked hard and effectively so much so that his brethren in 
Maryland criticized him for being overzealous in his efforts to con 
vert the Quakers and other dissenters. On his death he was suc 
ceeded after an interval by Evan Evans who, though not the 
planter of the Church at Philadelphia, deserves to be regarded as 


its chief cultivator, for during a ministry of eighteen years he 
brought it to a flourishing condition. 

Evans was supported, in addition to what he received in local 
contributions, by a stipend of fifty pounds from the Society for the 
Propagation of the Gospel, which also gave thirty pounds to sup 
port a parish school. In a report which he made to the Society in 
1707 he also mentioned Sir Francis Nicholson as one of the chief 
benefactors of the Church. During the early years of his rectorate 
he enjoyed the services of an assistant, the Rev. John Thomas, later 
missionary at Hempstead, and while thus supplied he held two 
evening lectures a month, one on the last Sunday of the month, 
preparatory to the Eucharist which was to be celebrated the fol 
lowing week, and the other for the benefit of a group of young 
men who were also accustomed to meet after morning service to 
read the Bible and sing psalms. On the latter occasions, Evans, 
whenever he could be present, would read prayers and preach. 
The evening lectures had the advantage of attracting many young 
Quakers, who would begin by listening at the windows until some 
of them got up courage enough to come inside, where what they 
heard proved sufficiently appealing so that eventually they were 
baptized and came to Communion. Nevertheless, when Thomas 
resigned, Evans hesitated to ask for another assistant because, in 
the absence of a bishop, he feared that there would be no one to 
settle the inevitable disputes arising between rector and curate. 

Evans had also preached at the villages in the neighborhood of 
Philadelphia, and had organized parishes in some of them. The Expansion 
second church in the colony was built in the old Swedish burying- ? he church 
ground at Chester. The family of James Sandelands, who had 
originally donated the cemetery tract, had started to build a wall 
around their family plot when it was suggested to them that, as 
the Swedish church had fallen into decay, they should turn their 
wall into a new church. With this suggestion they complied, their 
neighbors helping them, and in 1703 the structure was completed 
and opened for use by George Keith. The chief promoter of this 
enterprise was Jasper Yeates, who had also been one of the found 
ers of Christ Church, Philadelphia. Shortly after the completion 
of the building, a missionary was sent by the Society to serve 
Chester and the neighboring communities. He left after a few 
years and the church was supplied only irregularly until 1728 


when Richard Backhouse began his long ministry there. He 
found that many who had formerly belonged to the Church had 
drifted back into Quakerism for want of a pastor. 

The Swedes had been the first settlers along the Delaware, and 
their relations with the Church were always very cordial. Trinity 
Church, Wilmington, and Gloria Dei Church, Philadelphia (both 
commonly known as "Old Swedes' "), which were originally built 
to serve their colony, are now Episcopal churches. The Swedes 
were glad to accept ministers of the Church of England when 
these were sent to them and, on the other hand, their ministers 
were occasionally employed in that Church without any question 
being raised as to the validity of their orders. In 1705 the Society 
for the Propagation of the Gospel appointed one of them, the Rev. 
Andreas Rudman, its minister at Oxford, a village in southeastern 
Pennsylvania. He died in 1709 and was succeeded by a Welsh 
man, who also served the Welsh community at Radnor. After 
the latter 5 s death, both stations were supplied only intermittently. 
In 1715 Evans paid a visit to England and made the mistake of 
Later History appointing Francis Phillips, whom the Society had sent to Strat- 
o Christ iord, Connecticut, locum tenens in his absence. Phillips not only 
interfered with Robert Jenney, whom the Society had sent to 
Philadelphia as curate, but got himself involved in an unsavory 
scandal. It is impossible to say certainly whether or not the 
charges brought against him were true, but the preponderance of 
evidence seems to indicate that they were. The neighboring clergy 
believed them, and so did a number of the laity, but the vestry did 
not, and a temporary schism resulted in the parish, as those who 
did believe declined to attend Phillips' ministrations. In order to 
keep this faction from leaving the Church altogether, the neigh 
boring clergy preached to them by turns until 1716 when the re 
turn of Evans and the departure of Phillips healed the breach. 

Evans retired in 1718 and Jenney was transferred to New York 
the same year, so that the parish again had to be supplied by its 
neighbors until the Rev. John Vicary was sent by the Bishop of 
London in 1719. Vicary held the post until his death in 1723, when 
the unfortunate parish was again exposed to an ecclesiastical 
scandal. Vicary had been ill during the last year of his life, and 
the parish was supplied for a time by the Rev. William Harrison. 
When the latter moved to Staten Island, the vestry obtained the 


services of John Urmiston, whose career in South Carolina and Trouble with 

in Maryland has already been mentioned. The vice of drunken- rmiston 

ness, with which Urmiston was charged in those two colonies, 

had by now become habitual with him, and it was not very long 

before the vestry was obliged to dismiss him. He departed into 

Maryland, whence he wrote to the Society charging John Talbot 

with being responsible for his removal and accusing him both of 

being a "J ac rjhe" and of having obtained episcopal consecration 

from the Nonjurors. He also made a complaint against Christ 

Church which showed that a rather high standard of Church life 

was maintained there. "I was not sorry," he said, "for my removal 

from so precarious and slavish a place, where they require two 

sermons every Lord's Day, prayers all the week, and homilies on 

festivals, besides abundance of funerals, Christenings at home, and 

sick to be visited," 

After getting rid of Urmiston, the vestry asked Talbot to 
come to restore order, and then employed his friend, Dr. Richard 
Welton, a Nonjuror, until 1726 when Governor Keith expelled 
him from the colony. Bishop Gibson had delayed sending 
a successor to Vicary for three years, possibly because too many 
other matters claimed his attention at his first coming to the See 
of London. The shock of learning that a Nonjuror had actually 
been employed in the parish roused him to action, however, and 
in 1726 he sent the Rev. Archibald Cummings to Philadelphia as 
rector and Commissary, in which positions he served acceptably 
until 1741. In the latter part of Cummings' rectorate, the Rev. 
Richard Peters was called as his assistant, but after a time he 
resigned, because of a disagreement with the rector, and took up 
the practice of law, for which he had originally been trained, 
becoming secretary to the land office, and later Secretary of the 
colony. When Cummings died, the vestry petitioned London to 
license Peters as their rector, but his request was refused, and 
Robert Jenney was sent back to them instead. Jenney served as 
rector for twenty years, and when he died the Bishop at last agreed 
to accept Peters, who, by then, had become one of the leading men 
of the colony. During his incumbency, which lasted until the 
Revolution, the parish was, for the first time, granted a corporate 

By 1761 the number of Churchmen resident in Philadelphia had 


St. Peter's 

St. Paul's 

College o 

increased sufficiently so that a second Church was required, and a 
new congregation, that of St. Peter's, was organized by the vestry 
of Christ Church. When the building was completed, it was de 
cided that the two parishes should be placed upon an exactly equal 
footing, being subject to a united vestry and served by the same 
ministers with an equal claim upon them. The pews in the two 
churches were to rent for the same amounts, and the pewholders 
to have equal rights in voting for the vestry. It was at first con 
templated to put all of the ministers on an equal footing also, 
but this policy was abandoned. The arrangement thus worked 
out was a mean between the system which prevailed at Boston of 
having the several churches entirely independent of one another, 
and that employed in New York, where the chapels were kept 
subordinate to the main parish. 

In 1759 William McClennachan, who had deserted the Society's 
mission on the Kennebec, arrived in Philadelphia and induced the 
vestry to elect him assistant minister without the consent of the 
rector. He belonged to the Methodist party probably to the 
Whitefieldian wing and according to Dr. Smith, he was both a 
"quack doctor and a quack preacher," having come to the colonies 
equipped with the remedies of one Dr. Ward, which remedies he 
hoped to sell to the inhabitants. Because of the opposition of Smith 
and Jenney, he was unable to obtain a license for his post either 
from London or Canterbury and had to withdraw. He took with 
him, however, a part of the congregation, whom he organized 
into St. Paul's Church. He remained with them only two years, 
but the parish continued, though for many years its history was an 
uneasy one. 

The organization of the College (originally an academy) at 
Philadelphia was mainly the work of Franklin, though he was 
assisted by Richard Peters, and others. Franklin was anxious to 
obtain the services of Samuel Johnson of Stratford, later of King's 
College, as head of the institution, but the latter declined, and in 
1749 the Academy started work with the Rev. David Martin as 
rector. He died in 1751 and William Smith, who had lately arrived 
in New York and had published a pamphlet telling how he would 
run a college, was offered, on trial, the post of instructor in natural 
philosophy, logic, and kindred subjects. He seems all his life to 
have possessed the knack of winning the favor of influential 


people, and he had not been long in Philadelphia before Franklin 
and Peters decided to make him rector of the Academy, if the 
necessary funds could be obtained. These were presently forth 
coming from Thomas Penn, the proprietor. Smith went to Eng 
land in 1753 to obtain orders, and returned in 1754 to become 
head of the Academy. In 1755 it was rechartered as a college, and 
he became its first provost. Both Franklin and Smith were men 
of broad religious views, though Smith's were probably not so 
hazy as the former's, and they saw to it that no religious test 
should ever be required of either the students or faculty of the 
College, which was placed upon a strictly non-denominational 
basis. In 1762 Smith went to England to raise money for the Col 
lege, with results which we have seen. He also was successful in 
raising some money for it in the southern colonies. 

He quarreled with Franklinor Franklin with him after a few 
years, and the latter thereafter gave but cool support to the College. 
Their dispute was primarily political, as Smith supported the party 
of the proprietors, which Franklin opposed, but it was given a 
personal animus by Smith's support of the claim made by Frank 
lin's co-worker, Ebenezer Kinnersley, to be the chief discoverer 
of electricity. Smith's political views also got him into trouble with 
the Quaker party and in 1758 the Assembly put him in jail for 
contempt in printing the defense of a judge, William Moore, 
whom they had impeached. The chastisement proved on the whole 
a blessing, for it led to a marriage with the judge's daughter which 
was apparently a happy one, and gained for Smith the sympathy 
of the proprietors and others in England who were familiar with 
the case. 

William Smith was one of the most brilliant of the provincial 
clergy and he exercised a great and constructive influence upon Character of 
the history of the Church both during the colonial period and in Provost Smith 
the epoch of reorganization. Like most brilliant men he was am 
bitious, and one cannot escape the feeling that self-interest gener 
ally played a rather important part among the motives that 
influenced his conduct. In his later years he became rather ava 
ricious, and engaged in land speculations which were more suc 
cessful than such ventures usually are. Nevertheless, he worked 
hard to advance the interests both of religion and learning on this 
continent, and he took a broader and more statesmanlike view of 


the needs of the Church in America than most of his contempo 
raries were able to attain. His advice was sought and valued by 
Archbishop Seeker and by the Society, and it is probable that the 
shift in the latter's policy away from its over-emphasis on New 
England, which became increasingly apparent in the decades im 
mediately preceding the Revolution, was due, at least in part, to 
Smith's repeated insistence upon the needs of the frontier. 

While Smith was in England seeking ordination, in 1753, he 
Work Among published a pamphlet setting forth the educational needs of the 
the Germans Germans who had recently come into Pennsylvania in large num 
bers, some of them from Hunter's abortive settlement in New 
York, but most of them direct from Germany, where Penn had 
advertised his colony extensively. They had, for the most part, 
gone into what was then the western part of the colony, and like 
most settlers, had experienced a serious cultural decline on reach 
ing the frontier. Smith feared that they would either sink into bar 
barism or fall under the influence of the French and give up their 
nominal allegiance to England. He proposed the organization of 
a system of free schools in the western district where English and 
German settlers should learn the rudiments of education side by 
side, with a view to their eventual assimilation. The scheme was 
carried out in part by the organization in 1754 of the Society for 
Propagating Knowledge among the Germans of Pennsylvania, 
with Smith, Franklin, Peters, and other prominent colonials as 
trustees. The scheme was dependent upon support from England, 
and interest in it over there faded rapidly after the departure of 
its gifted advocate. It died in a few years for want of adequate 
support, but while it lasted, it did good work. Had it been con 
tinued, some of the primitive folkways now associated with the 
"Pennsylvania Dutch" might never have developed. 

In 1758 the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel decided 
The Frontier to do something for the Pennsylvania frontier, and sent the Rev. 
Thomas Barton into York and Cumberland counties. He later 
moved his headquarters eastward to Lancaster, but continued to 
serve the southwestern part of the colony until the Revolution. 
Dr. Smith credited him, together with two Presbyterian ministers, 
with having kept the people together and prevented the region 
from being deserted during the French and Indian War. In 1761 
William Thomson was sent as missionary to Carlisle. 



Delaware was, of course, under the jurisdiction of the govern 
ment of Pennsylvania during most of the colonial period, and the Delaware 
history of the Church there is really a phase of its growth in the 
smaller towns of the larger colony. The first mission in Delaware 
was organized at New Castle In 1704, and the Rev. George Ross 
was sent to supply it. He proved restless at first, and made an 
attempt to obtain a better living elsewhere, but after a while he 
settled down to a long and devoted ministry. In 1719 he declined 
an offer of the rectorate at Philadelphia because he could not 
obtain a successor for New Castle. In 1705 a minister was sent to 
Dover. In 1717 Ross went with Governor Keith on a visit to Sussex 
County and found that at Lewes and elsewhere there were loyal 
Churchmen who met together to hear services read by a lay 
reader and postponed the baptism of their children until a Church 
minister visited them. In 1722 a missionary was sent to the county. 
He reported that the Churchmen formed the largest religious body 
at Lewes. The presence of Charles Inglis at Dover has already been 
mentioned in connection with his removal to New York. While 
at Dover he endeavored with some success to curb the practice of 
getting the electorate drunk at political meetings. He preached 
near the meeting places, and persuaded some of the leading 
candidates to stay away. He told the Society that before he began 
this reform, Churchmen were the worst offenders. 

The first missionary of the Church in New Jersey was the Rev. 
Alexander Innes, formerly chaplain at New York, and a Non- New Jersey 
juror, who assembled a congregation in Monmouth County at the 
beginning of the eighteenth century, and preached there for some 
time, but his work in that section was not followed up until the 
latter part of the century. Keith and Talbot both preached in New 
Jersey and Talbot settled at Burlington in 1703, whence he con 
tinued to visit the other parts of the colony whenever he could. 
An attempt had been made in East Jersey in 1697 to provide 
public support for ministers, though not specifically those of the 
Church, but it was defeated by the Baptists and Quakers. The 
next year, the proprietors, who were Quakers, appointed Jeremiah 
Bass as governor, with instructions to oppose such a measure. Bass 
later became one of the chief supporters of the Church at Burling 
ton, but at this time he was a Baptist. 

In 1705 the Society sent two missionaries, John Brooke and 


Early Thorogood Moore, to New Jersey. They were both devoted young 

Missionaries men? anc j t fa{ r wor jr k ac } a promising beginning. Brooke cate 
chized twelve to fifteen days a month, and visited the other days, 
by which method he rapidly assembled congregations in the vil 
lages which he served. Moore, however, made the mistake of 
supposing that the great of this world were as amenable to ec 
clesiastical discipline as the lowly. While in New York, on his 
way to New Jersey, he publicly expressed the opinion that the 
local clergy ought to excommunicate Cornbury for masquerading 
in women's clothes. After t he had arrived in New Jersey, he put 
his theories into practice by excommunicating Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor Ingoldsby, whose manner of life was only a little less no 
torious than his superior's. He was also suspected of being too 
friendly with Lewis Morris, the leader of the opposition to Corn- 
bury. When Cornbury visited Moore's station in New Jersey and 
desired to receive Communion, the missionary found it necessary to 
visit a village twelve miles away. This was the last straw, and 
Moore was carried a prisoner to Fort Anne in New York, Brooke 
promptly went to the same place and helped his colleague to 
escape. They fled to Massachusetts, whence they took ship for 
England. The ship was lost on the way over, and they were heard 
from no more. 

Their departure left Talbot once more the only Church minister 
in New Jersey. In 1709 John Bartow of Westchester visited the 
colony and found that many congregations might be formed if 
there were ministers, but that the people showed no disposition 
to support them. In the same year the Society sent Edward 
Vaughan to the colony and he was followed by Thomas Halliday 
a little later. The two missionaries did not like each other very 
well at first, and they sent back numerous complaints against one 
another to the secretary. Halliday seems to have suffered from a 
violent temper, and to have been a bit too fond of "the bottle." 
He also got himself mixed up in the political disputes of the 
colony, though, for that matter, it was practically impossible to 
keep out of them. In 1714 the people at Amboy (now Perth 
Amboy), one of his stations, carried away all of the furnishings of 
the church and told him to get out, as he was a "knave and a 
villain." On the advice of his brethren, he took this as a hint that 
he was not wanted, and confined his efforts to Piscataqua and 



Hopewell, his other stations. Eventually, he came to terms with 
Vaughan, and the two agreed to rotate among the missions of the 
colony, except Burlington, where Talbot was still stationed. By 
1718 Halliday's vices had grown upon him so much as to become 
a scandal, and he was obliged to leave New Jersey. 

Talbot, all this time, had been serving quietly and devotedly at 
Burlington, and doing what he could to settle the difficulties that Dismissal of 
arose from time to time in the other parts of the colony, and at Talbot 
Philadelphia. In 1724 he stated that he was accustomed to read 
Morning and Evening Prayer daily in. his church, and thought 
he was the only minister in America who did so. In 1718 a school 
master was sent to his parish. Urmiston's charges against Talbot 
in 1724 climaxed a long series of accusations that he was a "Jaco 
bite" and led to his dismissal, the specific offense alleged against 
him being that of "exercising jurisdiction over his brethren/' 
which he denied doing. He stayed at Burlington, however, during 
the few years that remained of his life. In 1727 he was succeeded 
by Nathaniel Harwood. 

After Halliday's departure, Vaughan remained at Elizabeth, and 
the Rev. William Skinner was sent to Perth Amboy and Pisca- Growth of the 
taqua (Piscataway). In 1722 the inhabitants of Salem, in south- 
western New Jersey, petitioned for a minister and John Holbrook 
was sent them. The county officials of Monmouth had petitioned 
for a missionary, in 1717, saying that libertinism was rife in the 
county and that the ministers of other denominations could do 
nothing to curb it, but they thought that a Church minister might. 
In spite of this flattering request nothing was done for them, nor 
was any more attention paid to a second petition in 1729, at which 
time there were no ministers of any sort in the county, except one 
or two Quaker teachers. It was not until 1734 that the Society 
sent a missionary to the county where the services of the Church 
had first been heard in New Jersey. 

Vaughan and William Harrison of Staten Island organized a 
church at Newark in the early thirties and the mission continued 
to be supplied by the missionaries in New Jersey or on the island 
until 1751, when a resident missionary was appointed to the post. 
Vaughan died in 1747 and the vestry at Elizabeth employed a local 
youth, Thomas Bradbury Chandler, as catechist and lay reader 
until he was old enough to be ordained, whereupon he became 

New Jersey 


their minister and served them until a few years after the Revo 
lution, though his Tory sympathies drove him from the county 
while the struggle was going on. His championship of the colonial 
episcopate in the sixties made him one of the more prominent 
of the American clergy and he was the first choice of the Society 
for Bishop of Nova Scotia, but was obliged to decline because of 
ill health. As father-in-law of Bishop Hobart, he may have had 
some influence in forming the ideals of later American High 


_OW MANY infidels, bond and free, are there in your 
parish, and what is done for their conversion?" was one of the General 
questions which Bishop Gibson asked of all the colonial ministers ^difference 

- -,*-,^A t r i i i t( > the Con- 

m 1724, and, we are sorry to say, most or them were not able ver sion of the 
to give the question a very satisfactory answer. The comparative Indians and 
indifference shown in the colonial period by all religious denomi- e s roes 
nations, except the Roman Catholics and the Moravians, to the 
conversion of the Indians who were found upon the continent and 
of the negroes who were brought to it, is one of the most remark 
able features of our religious history. A few devoted individuals, 
such as John Eliot and Eleazer Wheelock did, it is true, give their 
lives to the work, and societies for the promotion of such efforts 
were occasionally projected and even organized, but very little 
persistent work was done by any denomination as a whole, with 
the exception of the two mentioned. 

Among the rest, though this is faint praise, the Church of Eng 
land had probably as honorable a record as any other. She did not Efforts of 
accomplish a great deal, and her efforts can hardly be said to have e c urc 
been proportionate to her resources, but she did keep pecking at 
the task more or less steadily, and in the end she achieved some 
thing. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel generally 
had somebody ministering to the Mohawks eventually with suc 
cess and it sent one or two missionaries to other tribes at different 
times. It also urged its regular missionaries repeatedly to do what 
they could for any negroes or Indians that might be in their 
parishes, and its proddings were seconded from time to time by 
the Bishops of London and the Archbishops of Canterbury. Arch 
bishop Seeker, who took a sincere interest in everything relating 
to the spiritual welfare of the colonies, concerned himself with 



this problem quite a bit, and corresponded with a number of 
leading colonials on schemes for the evangelization of the Indians, 
but none of the proposals discussed came to much. Even the civil 
authorities took an interest in the matter occasionally, and in 1715 
the Commissioners of Trade and Plantations wrote to the Bishop 
of London that they had learned that "several nations of Indians 
have been desirous of Protestant missionaries to instruct them in 
the true religion." Their chief concern was that the missionaries 
sent over should be persons "of unspotted characters, and whose 
lives and conversations ought to be unblamable," by which they 
apparently meant that they should be of the right political com 
plexion, for the Commissioners objected specifically to John Talbot, 
whose life and conversation, when viewed from any but a partisan 
standpoint, were about as unblamable as any man's could be. 

Thanks to the promptings of the Society and the Bishops, a 
Work Among little was done for the Indians in almost every colony where they 
the Indians existed in any great number. As we have already seen, there is 
m Virginia reason to believe that the earliest ministers in Virginia had suc 
ceeded in converting a few of them by the time of the colony's first 
Indian War. The first project for the College there contemplated 
the education of Indians as well as whites, and when that institu 
tion was at length established, earnest and partly successful efforts 
were made to get Indian youths to attend it. These endeavors were 
stimulated by a legacy left by Robert Boyle for the purpose of 
educating Indians at the College, and were energetically encour 
aged by Governors Nicholson and Spottswood. 

In 1710 Nicholson sent Robert Hicks and John Evans as agents 
to inform the neighboring Indians of Boyle's legacy and to try to 
obtain nine or ten children for instruction. The Indians were to be 
assured that the children would be clothed and well treated, and 
that their parents might visit them whenever they wished. They 
should also have an Indian man with them, to wait upon them and 
to talk with them in Indian, so that they would not forget the 
language of their people while they were at the College. These 
provisions show a more intelligent approach to the Indian problem 
than was generally made by colonial officials, but it cannot be said 
that the Indians received the offer with enthusiasm. Their family 
feeling was strong, they were suspicious of the English and they 
were not particularly hospitable to English culture, except in the 



matter of firearms and rum. In the end it was only by agreeing to 
relinquish the tribute money that the Indians had been accustomed 
to pay that the governor obtained a number of children for the 
College. Nicholson also projected the founding of a chapel and 
mission house, and the employment of a missionary and inter 
preter among the Indians, but these plans had not been brought to 
fruition when he was recalled. 

Spottswood took as much interest in the conversion of the 
Indians as his predecessor. He visited the tributary tribes and 
some of the more remote ones personally, and sought to persuade 
them to send their children to the College. In 1712 he reported 
that there were fourteen Indians attending, and that he expected 
six more from the neighboring tribes. He also established a pre 
paratory school for them at his own expense. In 1716 Spottswood 
sent the Rev. Charles Griffin to the frontier to instruct the Indian 
children. Griffin soon assembled seventy pupils and succeeded in 
teaching them the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Command 
ments, the existence of but one God, the names of the Three 
Persons, and what each had done for them. He also reported that 
they behaved reverently at prayers and were able to make the 
responses. After Spottswood's retirement, interest in the Indians, 
except as potential enemies, seems to have lagged, and we hear 
little of their presence at the College, or of missionaries being sent 
to them. The feeling between the two races was growing more 
hostile and the College was prospering as a place for educating 
planters' sons, who probably were not very anxious to associate on 
terms of equality with the aborigines. 

In South Carolina, though little was actually done for the con 
version of the Indians, the problem was frequently discussed. As 
we have already seen, the Society had originally intended that its 
first missionary in the colony, Samuel Thomas, should work 
among the Indians, but Governor Johnson, for reasons best known 
to himself, sent him to Goose Creek instead. His successor at that 
station, the devoted Francis Le Jau, took an active interest in the 
welfare of the Indians. He conversed with them whenever he had 
the opportunity, endeavored conscientiously to understand and 
appreciate their ideas and standards, and frequently urged the 
Society to send a missionary among them. He stated that they "do 
make us ashamed by their life, conversation, and sense of religion 

Interest of 

The Indian 
Problem in 


quite different from ours." "Ours," he said, "consists in words and 
appearance; theirs, in reality." He thought that if the Indians could 
be made to understand what was meant by the words commonly 
used in speaking o religion, they would appear "other than 
imagined," for he discovered that, as he gained their confidence 
and came to understand their terminology, they disclosed "sur 
prising things" about their faith things, apparently, which showed 
a closer approximation to Christianity than was generally sup 
posed. He believed that the chief obstacle to their conversion 
would be the manner in which the Indian trade was carried on, as 
it consisted chiefly in fomenting wars among them for the purpose 
of getting slaves. 

Commissary Johnston also took some interest in the Indian 
problem. In 1710 he reported that the Indian traders with whom 
he had conversed had told him that it would not be difficult to 
convert the Indians to Christianity, and he himself felt, like Le 
Jau, that the chief difficulty would be in the misconduct of these 
same traders. The next year, he got himself appointed a Commis 
sioner for Indian Affairs, in the hope of learning more about 
them, but whatever knowledge he acquired thereby did not lead 
to any practical result. In 1714 a resident of the colony wrote to a 
friend of the Society that he had a son whom he designed for the 
ministry and that he proposed sending him among a neighbor 
ing tribe of Yammasees to learn their language and instruct them 
in Christianity, but it seems probable that he changed his mind, 
for nothing more can be learned concerning the project. In 1723 
Francis Varnod, the missionary at Dorchester, South Carolina, 
wrote to the Secretary that he thought the conversion of the 
Indians a practicable object and suggested sending a discreet young 
man in deacon's orders to live among them. Like Le Jau, he had 
formed a good opinion of the Indian character. "I find," he said, 
". . . that these poor pagans are endued with very good natural 
parts, of a temper very sedate and tranquil, and quite opposite to 
that hot and violent spirit of the negroes." Again, however, the 
matter ended in suggestion. 

What was done for the Indians in the other southern colonies 
Other cannot be described as anything more than a gesture. Giles Rains- 

Southern ford, one of the Society's missionaries in North Carolina, spent 
Colonies a ew montns among the Indians there in 1714, and obtained 



some knowledge of their language, on the strength of which he 
offered himself as minister at an Indian settlement projected by 
Governor Spottswood of Virginia. The governor's plans never 
matured, however, and Rainsford's services were employed else 
where. A later North Carolina missionary reported in 1722 that 
the Indians in the colony had been reduced to three hundred 
fighting men, with the usual complement of non-combatants, and 
he thought there was little chance of their conversion. In Mary 
land, to judge from the answers of the clergy to Bishop Gibson's 
questions, nothing was done for the Indians because their language 
was unintelligible, and they were hostile to Christianity anyway. 
The marriage of Thomas Bosomworth of Georgia with a squaw 
in 1745 doubtless showed an interest of some sort in the Indians, 
but one may be permitted to question whether it proceeded from a 
missionary spirit, though Bosomworth said it did. Samuel Frink, 
the minister at Augusta, made some effort to convert the Chicka- 
saw Indians in 1766, but without success. He observed that he 
thought it desirable to reclaim the white people of the colony 
first, as he found them "almost as destitute of any sense of religion 
as the Indians themselves." 

In Pennsylvania the only attempt to convert the Indians seems 
to have been that made by Thomas Barton on his first coming into Pennsylvania 
the western counties. He had hopes of succeeding in the endeavor, and 
but they were dashed when Braddock's defeat alienated the Indians New ey 
from the English. Dr. Smith took an interest in the Indian ques 
tion but he was not in a position to do anything himself. In New 
Jersey there were but few Indians, and nothing was done for them. 

In New England attempts to convert the Indians, with the ex 
ception of those who lived as slaves or otherwise within the limits New England 
of the regular parishes, were infrequent and spasmodic, and even 
when the Indians themselves expressed the desire for a missionary, 
they were not supplied with one. In 1727 some of the missionaries 
succeeded in converting Charles Augustus Ninaagret, the chief 
sachem of the Narragansetts. Ninaagret asked the Society to send 
a missionary to his people, but this was not done, though the 
neighboring ministers may have worked among them from time 
to time. In 1742 Stephen Roe, the assistant at King's Chapel, visited 
Maine with the governor of Massachusetts, who had gone there 
to make a treaty with the Indians. French missionaries had been 


working among these tribes, and Roe found many of the Indians 
wearing crucifixes, whereupon he took occasion to warn them 
against the sinfulness of "image worship and prayers to saints 
and angels." In 1745 the Society apparently had some intention 
of sending a missionary to the Moskito Indians, for Samuel 
Johnson wrote that he did not know of any minister who was 
willing to go there, but that Mr. Prince, the schoolmaster at Strat 
ford, would be willing to do so. The project was evidently given 
up, however, for neither Prince, nor anyone else, was appointed. 
In 1756 the Mohican Indians asked the Society for a share in the 
services of the missionary at Norwich, and this was probably 
granted them. At the outbreak of the Revolution the Commis 
sioners for Indian Affairs in New England were employing a 
minister of the Church as missionary among the Cheroche 
Indians in Bristol County, Rhode Island. Jacob Bailey, the devoted 
missionary on the Kennebec, found that the ravages of war had 
left only about fifty Indians (the remnant of the once powerful 
Norridgewolk tribe) in that region in 1765. Like Roe, he also 
found that they had been under French influence and were averse 
to Protestantism and English customs. 

It was in New York that the most persistent and effective work 
Work Among was accomplished among the Indians. The Iroquois, whose terri- 
&e iroquois t ory extended over most of the colony west of Albany, reachine 

in New York j T- i 1-11.., & 

down into Pennsylvania, and including tributaries in New Eng 
land and the South, were the only important body of Indians who 
were consistently friendly to the English, Champlain's muskets 
having secured their attachment to any power that opposed the 
French. Their allegiance was, moreover, of vital importance, for 
they guarded the otherwise exposed frontier of New York, which 
formed the natural gateway from Canada into the English colo 
nies. There were, therefore, excellent practical reasons for seeking 
to attach these people to the national faith of England, but it is 
not necessary to assume that this was the only motive for sending 
missionaries among them, or even that it was the predominant one. 
We have just seen that the Society was anxious to do what it 
could for the conversion of the Indians everywhere, even though 
its efforts may not always have been as energetic as could be 
wished, and the greater friendliness of the Iroquois offered a more 



encouraging prospect for work among them than was to be found 

Moreover, the Dutch ministers at Albany had already made a 
successful beginning among the Mohawks, who were then the 
easternmost of the Five Nations which made up the Iroquois 
Confederacy. Their work had been started when the colony be 
longed to the Netherlands, and was continued after the English 
occupation until 1702 when Lord Bellomont, the governor, forbade 
Godfrey Delius, the then pastor at Albany, to go on with the 
work. In the following year Robert Livingston, the Indian agent, 
submitted to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel a plan 
for converting the Iroquois by sending a missionary to each of the 
nations. A house and stockade were to be built for each minister 
and Livingston further suggested that each should bring with 
him two boys to learn the language and act as interpreters, as well 
as a supply of presents to win over the Indians. He also recom 
mended that, as the Dutch ministers at Albany had done good 
work among the Indians, Delius, as their present representative, 
should be given a stipend by the Society. With this last suggestion 
the Society complied, and Delius was offered a place on its rolls. 
He declined, partly because he still harbored resentment at the 
ill usage which he had received from Bellomont, and partly be 
cause he had become convinced that work among the Indians 
could not achieve any permanent success until the traders were 
prevented from supplying them with rum. At the same time he 
warned the Society that the Jesuits were becoming active among 
the Iroquois, and that something must be done soon if the tribes 
were not to be lost to England. 

It was, however, several years before anyone was sent to take 
over Delius' work. Daniel Bonder., the French minister at New Thomas 
Rochelle, is said by his brother clergy to have done successful Barclay 
work among the neighboring Indians, but these, presumably, 
were not Iroquois. In 1709, as was stated in the preceding chapter, 
Thomas Barclay was sent to Albany by the Society for the purpose 
of ministering both to the whites and the Indians. He found that 
there were about thirty Indians who were communicants of the 
Dutch Church, but he observed that they were ignorant and not 
very virtuous in their way of living. Nevertheless, he set to work 
to bring them into the Church of England, and eventually he 




succeeded in doing so. Three years after his arrival he paid a visit 
to the Mohawk village, which was some distance from Albany, 
and rebuked the Indians for profaning the chapel there, some of 
them having used it for a slaughterhouse. 

In 1710 the Indian chiefs had asked that a missionary should be 
sent to live among their people, and late in the fall of 1712 the 
Rev. William Andrews arrived at the Mohawk village in answer 
to their petition. Andrews was evidently a sincere and earnest man, 
but he had but little realization of the delicacy of the task that 
confronted him, and very little understanding of or sympathy for 
the people to whom he was sent. He gave no heed to the first rule 
of all missionary work, to present the milk of the Gospel before 
the strong meat, but started in at once to instruct the Indians in all 
of the major tenets of Christian theology, "the Doctrine of God, 
of the Creation, of providence, of Man's fall and restoration, of 
faith, repentance and the nature of the sacraments," even going so 
far as to project a course of lectures upon the catechism. 

As might be expected, the Indians proved unresponsive to 
teachings which they could but dimly understand, especially as 
they were forced, in the beginning at least, to hear them through 
an interpreter. In 1715 Andrews reported that he had about 
twenty Indian children in his school, but that he had to bribe 
them with food to keep them there. He still clung to the belief, 
however, that a few of the Indians were sincere Christians. Even 
tually it would seem that the Mohawks decided to have fun with 
the good man, for some of them told him that they would come 
to his services if he would give them a draft of rum, and others 
expressed the opinion that Baptism was all that was required to 
make anyone a good Christian. One man, whom he had ex 
communicated for drunkenness, sabbath-breaking, "cruelty in 
biting off a prisoner's nails," and other offenses, threatened to 
shoot him. He carried on, in spite of discouragements, for seven 
years, but eventually he became convinced that the Indians could 
never be converted, and resigned. 

Andrews' departure was followed, two years later, by Barclay's 
madness, and it was some time before either Albany or the Indians 
had another missionary. John Miln arrived at Albany in 1728, and 
the next year he visited the Mohawks. He administered the 
communion to ten, and baptized three Indian and two English 


children in the village. Thereafter, until the appointment of a mis 
sionary especially for them, he made a practice of visiting the 
Indians four times a year. In spite of Andrews' experience, he 
found them well disposed towards Christianity, and was greeted 
joyfully on every visit. In 1735 the Indians were once more given a 
missionary of their own or mostly of their own for Henry Bar 
clay was sent to Fort Hunter chiefly to minister to them, though 
there were now a few white settlers in that region, and their num 
ber was presently increased by the coming of a group of Irish 
Protestants. Barclay also made a beginning in the conversion of 
the Oneidas, the next tribe westward. 

When Barclay became rector of Trinity Church, New York 
City, the Rev. John Ogilvie was sent to take over his work among 
the Indians. Ogilvie does not seem to have undertaken his task in 
any very optimistic spirit, but he persisted in it for some years. He 
complained that, though the Indians would behave fairly well 
when he was present, he would no sooner leave them than they 
would set upon an orgy of drunkenness. He also observed that the 
dissolute lives led by most of the Indian traders made a very bad 
impression upon the aborigines. In 1760 Amherst required Ogilvie 
to accompany his forces into Canada as chaplain, and apparently 
he did not return. 

After a vacancy of some duration, Albany and the Indian fort 
were again placed under the care of a single man, the Rev. Henry Sir William 
Munro. In his first report, Munro urged the importance of sep- J hnson 
arating the two missions, and in this he was vigorously supported 
by Sir William Johnson, the Indian agent, who thought ministers 
should be stationed at Albany, Schenectady, Johnstown, and the 
Mohawk village. Johnson also urged the establishment of a school 
for the Indians similar to that which Eleazer Wheelock was 
building at Hanover, New Hampshire (now Dartmouth College) . 
Archbishop Seeker, to whom he made this suggestion, had at first 
been in favor of sending Indian youths to Wheelock's school 
(which had received numerous contributions from English 
Churchmen), with a view to their being episcopally ordained 
after completing the courses, but East Apthorp, the missionary at 
Cambridge, assured him that if this were done, all would turn 
out to be Presbyterians. Seeker was much alarmed at such a 


prospect, and on his advice the Society planned to set up a rival 
school. Nothing came of the project, however. 
In 1770 Myles Cooper and Charles Inglis paid a visit to Johnson 

John Stuart during which they were interviewed by a deputation of Mohawks 
who earnestly solicited a missionary, complaining that the Roman 
Catholic Indians of Canada, who had formerly been enemies of 
the English, had been allowed to have a minister, but they, who 
had always been friendly, had none. This petition was duly trans 
mitted to the Society by Inglis and Cooper, and the next year that 
body finally succeeded in sending out a missionary. He was the 
Rev. John Stuart, and he had not been long at Fort Hunter before 
it became apparent that the Society had at last found a man who 
was ideally fitted for the post. He had, of course, a great advantage 
over other missionaries in the support of Johnson, who probably 
exercised a greater influence over the Indians than any other 
Englishman in colonial times, and he was to some extent able to 
build upon the foundations laid by his predecessors, but the 
rapidity with which he worked himself into the affections of a 
proud and shy people is, nevertheless, remarkable. Even before he 
had learned their language, Stuart was able to persuade them to 
repair their chapel, and, with the aid of the sachems, he had 
considerable success in suppressing drunkenness. When the Rev 
olutionary War came along, the Indians promised him their pro 
tection if he would stay with them, and they did protect him until 
they themselves were driven out by the colonial forces. 
The infidels in bonds were mostly negroes, though quite a 

The Negroes number of Indians were also enslaved in colonial times. They 
presented a different problem from the free natives, and at first 
sight it might seem that, as they were settled among Christians 
and were subject to Christian masters, their conversion would have 
been much easier. This, in all probability, would have been the 
case if their masters had taken any interest in promoting such 
conversion but, except in a very few cases, the best that the min 
isters could hope for was that the masters would be indifferent to 
it. Normally they opposed it for various reasons. It is, obviously, a 
little difficult to take a benevolent interest in a man's future 
blessedness when you are energetically endeavoring to make him 
exist wholly for your benefit in this present life. Later on, when 
slavery had existed long enough so that people regarded it as the 

Courtesy, "The Spirit of Missions" 


Courtesy, Marine Research Society 

From an old print. 


natural state of the negro, the attitude of the master towards his Difficulties of 
servants might be, and frequently was, tinctured with honest CoBversion 
benevolence, but at first, when the still savage African had to be 
terrorized into submission, such an attitude was difficult. More 
over, there was, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, a 
widely prevalent fear, based upon some provisions of mediaeval 
canon law, that any slave who became a Christian could claim 
his freedom. James I had solemnly announced that this was not 
so in the preceding century, and various laws were passed to the 
same effect, but it took a long time to eradicate the belief. 

The planters also maintained, in some cases, that slaves who 
had been converted were more difficult to control. This opinion 
was probably based largely on prejudice, for at a later time it was 
discovered that Christian negroes made better slaves, and piety 
became a virtue to be stressed upon the auction block. That de 
velopment took place, however, after the negroes had become 
more used to servitude, when it was easier to persuade them that 
submission was a Christian duty. 

Even when the master's permission had been obtained, and the 
negro converted, the problem was only half solved. As the slave 
was not a free agent, it was often impossible for him to lead a 
Christian life, even if he wished to do so. After his conversion he 
might be sold to a master who would deny him any religious 
privileges at all, or failing this, he might still be compelled to do 
many things which were inconsistent with his profession. More 
over, so few pleasures were allowed him that it was very hard to 
turn away from any that he could enjoy, even when it happened 
to be sinful. Especially did the ministers find it difficult to bring 
the negroes to observe any regularity in their sexual relations. 
Whatever traditional customs they had had in this, or in any 
other respect, had been hopelessly destroyed by the interruption of 
all of their habitual relationships which necessarily resulted from 
their transplantation, and it was difficult for them to restrain a 
desire which their masters were glad to see them indulge, since its 
products were economically valuable. Even if they did marry and 
endeavor to be faithful to one another, there was always the possi 
bility that husband and wife might be sold to opposite ends of the 

In spite of these difficulties, however, fairly persistent efforts 


S.P.G. were made by the colonial ministers for the conversion of the 

Catechists: negroes, and in some instances with a certain amount of success. 
In New York and Philadelphia the Society for the Propagation 
of the Gospel maintained catechists especially to instruct the 
negroes, and their efforts seem to have produced satisfactory re 
sults. The New York catechist was Elias Neau, a French Hugue 
not refugee, who, before coming to this country, had suffered 
imprisonment for his faith. While in his dungeon, he had com 
forted himself by learning the liturgy of the Church of England, 
and after coming to this country he conformed to that Church, 
as did so many of his co-religionists. Though he was a layman and 
a merchant, his interest in the welfare of the negroes led to his 
appointment as the Society's catechist in 1704. Vesey, though he 
held a high opinion of Neau's personal character, disapproved of 
this appointment, because he thought the catechist should at 
least be in deacon's orders, and told Neau that he had no right to 
officiate unless he obtained a special license from the Bishop of 
London. Cornbury, however, said that this was not necessary, and 
himself gave Neau a license on the basis of which the latter, after 
some hesitation, began his work. 

The results of his efforts proved encouraging, though Vesey 
remained cool towards him, and most of the masters were not 
over-enthusiastic. The Dutch minister, however, preached in favor 
of his instructions, and that helped him somewhat. When Jenney 
was sent as assistant and schoolmaster at Trinity, he for a time 
superseded Neau, but a number of prominent laymen petitioned 
for the latter's restoration, and the work was given back to him in 
1719. He was finally succeeded by Wetmore in 1723, and there 
after the teaching probably was done by the assistant at Trinity. 
Some work, though not a great deal, was also done among the 
negroes in other parts of New York. Thomas Barclay reported 
from Albany in 1717 that he was having success in instructing the 
slaves there and Miln stated in 1730 that John Beasley, the school 
master at the same place, in addition to his work with the white 
children, had instructed twenty negroes in the catechism. Thomas 
Standard, who was missionary at Westchester in 1729, bought 
two negroes whom he hoped to instruct in Christianity but 
charges which were brought against his moral character forced 
his removal shortly afterwards, so nothing came of his plan. Robert 



Charlton reported from Staten Island in 1746 that he found the 
practice of singing the psalms increased the attentiveness of the 
negroes, and their desire to learn to read. 

The catechist at Philadelphia was the Rev. William Sturgeon, 
who was not appointed until 1747. As he was in priest's orders, William 
it was also expected that he would assist Robert Jenney at Christ Sturgeon 
Church, and he performed both functions in a satisfactory manner. 
It is true that he was dismissed by the Society in 1763 on charges 
of neglecting his work, but apparently he succeeded in vindicating 
himself from these allegations, for he was reinstated, and con 
tinued at his post until ill health forced his retirement in 1766. In 
New Jersey, John Holbrook, the minister at Salem, reported in 
1724 that he had asked the masters to send their negroes to him 
for catechizing, but it does not appear that his request met with 
much response. Samuel Cooke, the minister at Shrewsbury, Mon- 
mouth County, reported baptizing two negroes in 1752. 

It was in the South that the need for instructing the slaves was 
greatest, and there it constituted a most pressing problem for Virginia 
every parish priest, though, for reasons already stated, many of 
them were able to make but a poor shift at dealing with it. When 
the clergy of Virginia answered Bishop Gibson's queries in 1724, 
most of them reported that they would catechize and instruct the 
slaves whenever their masters permitted, but they also indicated 
that this was done in only a minority of cases. In the same year a 
proposal was offered to encourage the conversion of the slaves by 
providing that every slave child who was baptized and properly 
instructed in the Christian religion before he was ten, should be 
exempt from all taxes until he was eighteen, but this suggestion 
did not commend itself to the legislature. In 1726 John Lang, a 
minister of the province, complained that even when people did 
bring their slaves to be baptized and instructed, they allowed them 
afterwards to live "in common without marriage or any other 
Christian decency." In general, the situation in Virginia does not 
seem to have changed much throughout the colonial period, and 
it is probable that only a minority of the masters in the colony 
ever allowed their slaves to be instructed. 

In Maryland conditions were a little better. The answers to the 
1724 questionnaire there show that most of the clergy were accus- Maryland 
tomed to instruct the negroes with some regularity, and at a 


visitation held on the Eastern Shore in the same year, the minis 
ters petitioned the Bishop to call upon the laity to instruct their 
slaves or have them instructed, a request with which Gibson 
complied by issuing a pastoral letter on the subject a little later. 
At visitations which he held on both shores in 1730, Commissary 
Henderson stated in his address, "There is one thing ... in which 
we must confess we are blameworthy, both pastors and people, in 
that greater care is not taken about the instruction of the negroes." 
The next year, he questioned the clergy specifically as to what 
they had done to this end, saying that he himself read prayers on 
Sunday afternoons in summer, and catechized such negroes as 
would come, though the number was not so large as he wished. 
The rest of the clergy claimed to have made special efforts of 
some sort. Some complained that the masters would not cooperate, 
but others had had better success, had baptized many and had a 
few communicants. Some of these, however, complained that 
communicants were lost through their sale. The Rev. Arthur 
Holt, who came to Maryland in 1734, found his people, for the 
most part, "pretty well inclined to have their slaves be Christians," 
and baptized several negro infants within a short time of his 
arrival in the colony. 

The same hostility to the conversion of their slaves was shown 
South by the planters in South Carolina as elsewhere, but a few of the 

Carolina: ministers, by patient effort, had considerable success in overcoming 
LeJau it- ^ e most effective work in this respect was done by Francis 

Le Jau, the minister at Goose Creek. He obtained the permission 
of most of the masters in his parish to instruct their slaves, though 
some were not very cordial about it, and as a result he was 
able to baptize many slaves and admit a few to Communion. He 
had to overcome quite a bit of opposition in the process, how 
ever. One woman expressed dismay at the thought that any of her 
slaves might go to heaven, where, as she flattered herself, she 
would have to see them, and a young man refused to come to 
Communion if slaves were admitted to the rail. The weather also 
worked against Le Jau, for the extremity of the temperature in 
one direction or another frequently kept him from going out. 
Nevertheless, thanks to his efforts, his successor was able to report 
eighteen black in addition to seventeen white communicants in 


One of the most frequent objections made to the conversion of 
the slaves in the early years of the century was, as has already Obstacles to 
been noted, that they would be free if they became Christians. Conversion of 
To silence this objection the South Carolina legislature in 1712 Negroes 
passed an act which permitted slaves to be baptized, but pro 
vided definitely that such an action should not make them free. 
This removed the difficulties under that head, but it was not long 
before other excuses for opposing the conversion of the negroes 
were thought of. When the ministers of the colony sent Com 
missary Johnston to England in 1713 with their collection of com 
plaints to the Society, one of their grievances was that obstacles 
were placed in the way of performance of their "chief duty," the 
conversion of the negroes. In elaborating this point, Johnston said 
that, under present circumstances, the conversion of the slaves 
was practically impossible. The slaves could be instructed only on 
the Lord's Day, when the minister was necessarily busy with the 
whites. The distance between plantations made it impossible to 
assemble many slaves in one place, and this would be dangerous, 
even if possible, because the negroes would soon learn their own 
strength and be tempted to revolt. Most of the masters thought 
Christians made poor slaves, and the legislature gave but scant 
encouragement to the work. Many of the planters required their 
slaves to keep themselves by working a garden of their own one 
day a week. Some would allow only Sunday for this purpose, and 
even if Saturday were allowed him, the slave was tempted to use 
the extra day. 

Le Jau, as we have seen, managed to achieve satisfactory results 
in spite of all these difficulties, and other ministers succeeded in 
overcoming them to a certain extent. Ebenezer Taylor reported in 
1713 that though most of the masters refused to concern them 
selves with the conversion of their slaves, two women of his 
parish had taken great pains with theirs, and a year later he stated 
that their efforts had led to the baptism of twenty-six. William 
Treadwell Bull, Johnston's successor as Commissary, reported 
in 1718 that every negro in his parish was baptized. Another min 
ister reported that he had set apart Sunday afternoons for the 
instruction of the negroes, as they had formerly crowded the 
church in such numbers as to be offensive to the whites. The 
negroes were grateful for his efforts, and so were their masters, 





who found that the slaves behaved better as a result of his instruc 

Alexander Garden, after his coming to the colony, endeavored 
to have a law passed requiring every master of eighty or more 
slaves to have one of them trained as a schoolmaster to instruct 
negro children, but this measure touched the pocketbooks of the 
planters too closely to meet with their approval. Garden therefore 
suggested that the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel should 
appoint some of the clergymen in South Carolina its agents to 
purchase negro boys between twelve and sixteen to be trained as 
catechists. His idea seemed good to the Society and it requested 
Garden, and two other ministers, to purchase two slave boys 
with whom the experiment could be tried. This particular 
scheme did not work out very well, as the character of the boys 
chosen was not so good, but Garden did succeed in establishing 
a successful school for negroes at Charleston. 

The experiences of the missionaries in North Carolina and 
Georgia were substantially the same as those in the three other 
southern colonies. Ebenezer Taylor, who was sent into the former 
province from South Carolina in 1719, reported shortly after his 
arrival that he had baptized two negroes and could have baptized 
more, had not the report been circulated that those who were 
baptized would be freed. His early death prevented any further 
efforts. James Moir, who served in North Carolina for many 
years, claimed to have baptized three hundred whites and sixty 
negroes. Governor Dobbs expressed some doubt as to the justice 
of this claim, but whether with reason or merely because he was 
prejudiced against Moir is not certain. In Georgia, as we have 
seen, Bartholomew Zouberbuhler, who had been rector at Savan 
nah, left money to support a schoolmaster for the negroes, and the 
trustees of his estate employed Cornelius Winter at this post, the 
duties of which he performed acceptably. 

There were fewer slaves in New England than in the other 
New England colonies, but the ministers, nevertheless, did what they could for 
these. Timothy Cutler reported baptizing negroes at Christ 
Church, Boston, on several occasions, though never in large num 
bers. Matthias Plant reported from Newbury in 1727 that he had 
one negress who desired Baptism, but that her master would not 
permit it. In Connecticut, Christopher Newton of Ripton and 

and Georgia 


Jeremiah Learning of Norwalk reported the baptism of negroes at 
different times. Either there were more negroes in Rhode Island 
than in these other two colonies, or else more was done for them 
there, for we hear of more baptisms. James Honeyman, during Work of 
his long ministry at Newport, took especial pains for their con- 
version, and with gratifying results. In 1727 he reported that there 
were sixty or seventy negro and Indian slaves who constantly 
attended public worship, and that thirteen of them were baptized. 
In 1742-43 he baptized five grown negroes and two negro children, 
and in the latter year he stated that there were one hundred 
negroes who attended service, and that five of them were con 
stant communicants. At Narragansett, McSparran also worked 
with the negroes and persuaded several of them to desire Baptism, 
but he had difficulty in obtaining the consent of their masters. 
When Marmaduke Browne came to Newport in 1762, he opened 
a school for negro children, at the instance of a Society known as 
"The Associates of the late Dr. Bray." The next year he reported 
that he had thirty children of both sexes in attendance. 

To sum up, it may be said that the Church of England in the 
colonies worked with some effect among the Mohawk Indians, 
and that it made spasmodic efforts for the conversion of other 
tribes. Among the negroes its labors were more persistent and, in 
spite of numerous difficulties, were attended with some success. 
Nevertheless, it is probable that only a very small minority of 
them had been reached by that or any other denomination before 
the Revolution. 


.HE CAMPAIGN for resident bishops in the American plan- 
Early Efforts tations was carried on throughout most of the colonial period, 
to Obtain though there were times when the issue was allowed to remain 
!i ps more or less quiescent. We have already alluded to Archbishop 

Laud's desire to bring New England into conformity with the 
Established Church, and it is said that in 1638 he proposed to 
further this end by sending over a bishop. There is also a possi 
bility that the Commissioners sent to New England in 1664 were 
directed to set up bishops, but this supposition is based only upon 
a general rumor. In 1695, John Miller, who had been chaplain at 
New York, proposed that London should send a suffragan bishop 
to that colony to take over both the ecclesiastical and civil govern 
ment, but no one took his suggestion very seriously. With the 
coming of the eighteenth century the struggle was placed on a 
broader basis, and its objectives were made more definite. During 
this period we can distinguish three distinct campaigns for the 
colonial episcopate, one initiated by the Society for the Propa 
gation of the Gospel in the first two decades of the century, one 
started by the Bishop of London in the forties, and one set on foot 
by the colonial clergy in the sixties and seventies. In between 
these campaigns the issue was kept alive by occasional petitions, 
suggestions, and debates. 

The reasons why bishops were needed in the colonies were 

The Need for obvious, and to the Churchman of the present day it would seem 

Bishops t ] iat: j-^ey ought to have been conclusive. Whatever opinion might 

be held as to the theoretical necessity of bishops in a Christian 

Church, no one could deny that, as the Church of England was 

then and had always been so constituted, they were essential to her 

complete life. The reader who has followed our narrative thus 

far must have become aware of how many ways there were in 



which her functioning in the colonies was handicapped by the 
lack of her leading officers. Had there been bishops in the colonies, 
many young men might have entered the Church who, because 
they were unwilling or unable to undertake the voyage to Eng 
land, were forced, as things were, either to enter the service of 
other denominations or to continue as laymen; the many candi 
dates who died on shipboard or in England might have been 
saved; and the unworthy men who thrust themselves into the 
ministry might have been excluded by the investigation which a 
resident bishop could make. Had there been bishops the immoral 
clergymen whose evil deeds were so often thrown in the face of 
the Church by her enemies would have been deposed from her 
ministry, and many young men whose heads were turned at 
finding themselves located in a strange, crude country with no 
one to direct them might have been kept from straying at all by a 
little paternal advice and authority. Had there been bishops, dis 
putes among the clergy might have been ironed out, and dis 
putes with the civil authorities more efficiently handled. Had 
there been bishops, the clergy might have been encouraged to 
exercise a better spiritual discipline over the laity. Had there been 
bishops, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel would 
have had some correspondents in the colonies who were capable 
of taking something more than a purely local view of the Church's 
needs there, thus avoiding some of the mistakes and misdirec 
tions of its energies which necessarily resulted. 

Why, then, were bishops not sent? Probably the best explanation 
is that the inherent conservatism of the English Church prevented Why They 
it from evolving, until it was too late, the particular type of Were not 
officer that it needed for the novel situation prevailing in the 
thirteen colonies, but to justify this explanation it is necessary 
to translate it into terms of the problem as it existed, and of the 
controversies that surrounded it. It was obvious that no bishop 
claiming any temporal powers could be introduced into the 
colonies unless he came riding on a cannon, and by the eight 
eenth century the idea of spreading religion by force had gone 
out of fashion in England. A bishop with power to enforce 
civil penalties would not only have been anathema in all of the 
dissenting colonies, but he would have been exceedingly unpopu 
lar in the Church colonies as well. What sort of a bishop would 


he be, however, who had no support from the state? It was 
known, of course, that bishops had existed without such support 
in primitive times, but none had existed in England within any 
one's memory (except, of course, the Nonjurors, who were not 
to be considered), and most people seemed to think it unlikely 
that they would ever exist in the colonies. The advocates of the 
colonial episcopate generally insisted, it is true, that they desired 
only bishops with purely "spiritual" powers, but their assertion 
was regarded as a subterfuge by their enemies, and as an imprac 
tical ideal by a good many of their friends. 

What, people asked, could such bishops do that the Commis 
saries could not do? And when it was answered that they could 
ordain, depose, consecrate, confirm, and possibly excommunicate 
(some of the proposals would have denied the bishops any juris 
diction over the laity at all), they were not impressed. Moreover, 
it must be admitted that the advocates of episcopacy were not 
themselves very successful in solving the problem of how these 
bishops were to be supported. Numerous schemes were put^ for 
ward, but most of them contemplated the support being derived, 
at least in part, from the state, and this would necessarily have de 
tracted from the purely spiritual character of the desired episcopate. 

The inertia which made these obstacles seem insurmountable 
might have been overcome in time had it not been for the oppo 
sition of three powerful groups to the idea of sending any bishops 
to the colonies at all. These groups were the English politicians, 
especially those of Whig leanings, the English dissenters, and the 
dissenters in the colonies, or rather the Congregationalists and 
Presbyterians there, for the Baptists and Quakers concerned them 
selves very little in the matter. They had suffered as much from 
elders as from bishops, and they saw no good reason to distinguish 
between them. 

The objections of the politicians were perhaps best summed up 
Political in a letter which Horatio Walpole, the brother of Sir Robert, 

Objections wrote to Bishop Sherlock in 1750. In the first place, he said, there 
was no indication that the colonies desired a bishop. It was true 
there were some colonies which had set up the Church, and re 
quired episcopally ordained ministers, but these had never ex 
pressed to the King any desire for a bishop. That they had 
accepted the Commissaries without demur, merely justified the 


inference that they wanted that much jurisdiction and no more. 
All this was perfectly true, for, as we shall see, the southern 
colonies gave but little support to the move for an episcopate and 
sometimes actually opposed it. Walpole evidently did not consider 
the applications from individual Churchmen and clerical conven 
tions as being of any importance. In the second place, he said, 
if the measure were a desirable one, it would have been adopted 
before. Thirdly, it would stir up controversy and threaten the 
peace of the state by rousing the hostility of the dissenters, who 
were "necessary supports to the present establishment in state" 
L e. f to the Hanoverian dynasty and by reawakening the contro 
versy between Low Churchmen and High Churchmen. This 
would not only prove embarrassing to the King and Council, but 
it might actually endanger the security of the ruling house, as 
Jacobitism had "rather increased than diminished since the sup 
pression of the last unnatural rebellion in 1745." Fourthly, because 
of Sherlock's known views on the proper relations of Church and 
State, it would be suspected that, though he professed to desire 
only a spiritual episcopate in the colonies, his ultimate objective 
would be a temporal establishment. Finally, Sherlock had not 
shown how his bishops could be supported without causing 
expense to the colonies. 

These are the observations of a practical man, and they show 
a shrewd understanding of the situation. Sherlock's efforts, and Early 
those of other supporters of the colonial episcopate, did arouse the Hanoverian 
opposition of the dissenters, and they did give rise to just the 
suspicion that Walpole said they would. At the same time, the 
letter is a perfect illustration of the general policy of "let well 
enough alone" that characterized the English government under 
the first two Georges. Both of these monarchs, being Germans, 
were unpopular in England, and they were accepted merely be 
cause they, or the ministers who ruled for them, maintained an 
order of things with which most Englishmen were satisfied. The 
bugbear of Jacobitism-/. e. f of Stuart legitimacyhaunted their 
reigns, and to take any steps which might produce a controversy 
among their followers seemed but to invite a return of the older 
house. Thus in these reigns the inertia which is natural to all 
human institutions was reenforced by specific political conditions. 

The objections of the English dissenters proceeded mainly from 


Objections of 
the Dissenters 

Influence of 



the fact that the proposed episcopate would be obnoxious to their 
brethren across the water, though most of them probably added 
to this a natural hostility to anything that might promote the 
interests of the Established Church. There may also have been a 
fear among their opponents that if purely spiritual bishops were 
once settled in the colonies they would begin to enquire whether 
it might not be desirable in England also. 

The attitude of the Independents and Presbyterians in America 
was more complicated. To begin with, they had an opposing 
theory of the ministry. Though the early Puritans had been 
willing to accept episcopacy in England, on condition that the 
bishops did not impose too many other burdens on their con 
sciences, their New England descendants had come to regard 
the institution as definitely an evil one, and the Presbyterians had 
always thought it so. In the second place, as Walpole had antici 
pated, they doubted the sincerity of the advocates of episcopacy 
in saying that they wanted spiritual bishops only, and suspected 
a design was afoot to subvert their religious freedom by the intro 
duction of a full episcopal Establishment such as existed in Eng 
land. Their fathers had suffered at the hands of such an 
establishment in times past, for the bishops had been the chief 
agents in carrying out the Stuart religious policies, and though 
the teeth of the English prelates had been pretty well drawn since 
then, the New Englanders tended to think of these officers in 
terms of the traditions which had been handed down about them. 

Moreover, it would not be fair to the dissenters to represent 
their fears of a temporal establishment as being altogether ground 
less. There were certainly some of the advocates of episcopacy 
who would have been very glad of such an establishment could 
they have obtained it, and even supposing that the professions of 
a majority of its supporters were perfectly sincere, as they probably 
were, there was no certainty of their being able to control the 
future development of the institution once it was introduced. 

The Presbyterians, in addition to sharing the Puritan dread of 
persecution, were mostly Scotch or Scotch-Irish, and so had a 
national antipathy to the English Church. Furthermore, during the 
later years of the century, when the colonial opposition to the 
introduction of bishops became the most conspicuous feature of 
the controversy, the Presbyterians and Congregationalists were 


definitely committed to the party that was opposing the political 
designs of the British Ministry, and politics and polity got pretty 
well mixed up in their thinking. In their more popular produc 
tions they represented the proposals for a colonial episcopate as 
being a part of the same plot to enslave the colonies that had led 
to the Stamp Act and other offensive measures. This supposition 
was unfounded, for the English Ministry never favored the epis 
copal scheme, but the colonists were not very well informed as to 
the ramifications of English politics, and the general loyalty of 
the northern Churchmen to the home government seemed to give 
color to their suspicions. 

The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel began to work 
for a colonial episcopate almost as soon as it was founded. Bray 
himself had set the example of advocating this measure, and the 
Society was also urged to it by its missionaries and other ministers 
in the provinces. Talbot was especially persistent in his advocacy of 
the subject, and visited England in 1706 to promote it. In 1705, 
fourteen clergymen assembled at Burlington and petitioned the So 
ciety to send over a bishop. Evan Evans, in the report which he 
made to the Society in 1707, to which we have referred in a 
previous chapter, advocated the sending of a bishop to the colonies 
on the ground that such an officer would be able to maintain 
discipline among the clergy and support them in disciplining the 
laity, to keep peace among the ministers, and to keep up the 
supply by ordaining candidates in the colonies. He also suggested 
that the presence of a bishop would have the effect of creating 
a college at his See city as young men would be drawn there by 
the prospect of being ordained. 

In the same year that the Society received Evans' report, Bishop 
Compton also furnished it with some observations upon the sub- Bishop 
ject of the colonial episcopate. He held that the necessity of having Compton's 
a bishop in the provinces was clearly demonstrated by the dis- observatlon s 
ordered state of their ecclesiastical affairs, but that the sending of 
an absolute bishop, such as ruled in the Isle of Man, would give 
rise to great opposition, as the colonists had for a long time 
enjoyed great license in religious affairs. A suffragan /. e., a 
bishop appointed as assistant to some bishop in England might 
be more successful. The people were already used to having Com 
missaries with authority, in matters of discipline, similar to that 


of a suffragan, and they themselves were anxious to obtain the 
added benefits of Confirmation, the consecration of churches, and 
Holy Orders. Moreover, suffragans could be more easily removed 
if the experiment should fail. 

The policy of appointing suffragans had also been advocated 
The SJP.G. by a committee of the Society in 1703. Some years later another 
PIan committee elaborated the proposal by suggesting that four bishops 

be sent to the plantations: one to be located at Williamsburg, 
Virginia; one at Burlington, New Jersey; and two in the West 
Indies. To provide for their salaries it was suggested that the 
tithes offered by some of the colonial clergy should be accepted, 
that the bishops be granted Ordinary jurisdiction with its attend 
ing fees, that lands be purchased for them, that they should have 
one-tenth of all grants and escheats in the colonies, and that Her 
Majesty should be requested to grant them various supplementary 
sources of income. 

This report is of importance because most of the later proposals 
Its Near for the introduction of the episcopate differed from it only in 

Success detail. Some of the sources of revenue which it suggested were 

not very practical. The Society rejected the first one and referred 
the third back to the committee. The second would have excited 
great opposition in the colonial governors, who then enjoyed 
most of the usual perquisites of the Ordinary. Nevertheless, the 
scheme formed the basis of a representation placed before Queen 
Anne in 1713. Previous petitions to the Queen had been unsuc 
cessful, and a sermon in favor of the measure which was preached 
before the Society in 1712 by Bishop Kennett had produced no 
better results, but this last request met with Her Majesty's favor 
and a bill was prepared for submission to Parliament. The object 
thus almost gained was lost by Anne's death in 1715. The Society 
renewed its petition to George I within a very short time of his 
accession, but it was useless. The new King had no interest in the 
Church and neither did his ministers, who were Whigs. 

When the prospects of obtaining a bishop had seemed bright, 
the Society commissioned Talbot and Governor Hunter to pur 
chase a house for him in Burlington. It remained in the Society's 
possession until 1748, just as a new bid for the episcopate was 
being made, when it burned down, having already fallen into 
disrepair. Another interesting sidelight on this first campaign for 



a colonial bishop was the effort of the friends of Dean Swift, in 
cluding Hunter, to get him the post. Had they succeeded, it is to be 
feared that the aims of the chief promoters of the episcopate would 
have been defeated, for Swift was apparently looking for a 

After the failure of the petition to George I in 1715, there was 
a lull in the campaign, though a few guns continued to be fired 
from time to time on both sides of the Atlantic. In the very year 
of its defeat, the Society received a legacy of ^1000 from Arch 
bishop Tenison, which was to be used to help support a bishop 
when one was obtained, and until then to provide a pension for 
the oldest missionary in the colonial services. Other bequests 
for the support of the episcopate were received from time to time, 
though the total amount was not large. 

Petitions also continued to come over from various parts of the 
colonies with considerable frequency. In 1718 the clergymen and 
vestries at Philadelphia and Burlington sent over a petition for a 
bishop, and the next year one was signed by clergy and laymen 
from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. Pigot 
stressed the need for a bishop in his early reports from Connecti 
cut, where he went in 1722. When he learned of the conversions 
to be expected at Yale, he suggested that if a bishop could be sent 
to the colonies to ordain the converts, those who were legally 
settled in parishes could retain them, which they could not do if 
they had to leave for England. After his conversion, Samuel John 
son frequently spoke of the importance of introducing the episco 
pate, and in 1732 he suggested to Bishop Gibson the possibility 
of setting up a complete Church Establishment in the colonies. In 
1724 the clergy of the Eastern Shore in Maryland urged the send 
ing of a bishop. In 1725 and 1727 the clergy of New England held 
conventions and sent addresses to the King and the Society in 
favor of a bishop. In the latter year the ministers and vestries of 
Christ Church and King's Chapel in Boston sent a similar peti 
tion, and the Bishop of London actually proposed to send a 
suffragan to Maryland, but was prevented by the local courts. 

In 1741, the battle was reopened in England when Thomas 
Seeker, then Bishop of Oxford, preached a sermon before the Bishop 
Society in which he urged sending bishops to the colonies. The 
author of this sermon, who became Archbishop of Canterbury in 

The Struggle 


1758, was a lifelong friend of the provincial Church and one of 
the ablest and most politic of the advocates of the colonial episco 
pate. His maiden effort in that direction drew from the Rev. 
Andrew Eliot of New England some Remarks Upon the Bishop 
of Oxford's Sermon, which filled the first of the many pamphlets 
to be issued by American dissenters against the introduction of 
bishops. They also foreshadowed the general line of argument 
followed by later controversialists, expressing suspicion that the 
bishops would be supported by taxes laid upon all of the colonists, 
and that their coming would lead to the setting up of a general 
establishment from which no colony could escape. 

Bishop Gibson had presented a memorial in favor of colonial 
Bishop bishops on his coming to the See in 1723, and in 1745 he offered 

the King ancl Counci l ^C 1000 toward their support if any should 
be sent over in his lifetime, but it was not until the coming of his 
successor, Thomas Sherlock, in 1748, that the second campaign 
was really opened. Bishop Gibson, as we have seen in an earlier 
chapter, had taken out a royal commission investing him officially 
with the jurisdiction over the colonies which his predecessors had 
exercised by force of custom. Under this commission the hand 
of the Bishop and his agents had been strengthened, and the dis 
cipline of the clergy had been maintained more vigorously. Sher 
lock, however, had doubts about its validity, and, in any case, 
considered the authority granted under it inadequate, as the juris 
diction extended only to the clergy, and as no appeal was allowed 
from the Commissaries to the bishop. Moreover, he thought 
it a hardship for the colonies to be under a bishop who could 
never live among them, so that they must necessarily be deprived 
of Confirmation and Ordination unless they came to England for 
them. He also felt that the supervision of the colonies was too 
much of a burden for one man, when combined with the super 
vision of a large diocese in England, and desired to be relieved 
of it. 

For these reasons, which he expressed, and possibly also because 
he hoped to increase the loyalty of the colonists by strengthening 
the English Church among them, Sherlock refused to sue for a 
patent as Gibson had done, and instead began at once to work for 
a colonial episcopate. Shortly after his elevation, he went to the 
King and presented the religious needs of the colony in such a 



way that His Majesty consented to have the matter laid before 
his ministers. As he could obtain no satisfaction from them, he 
again went to the King and obtained his approval for the calling 
of a Council which, however, took no action. In 1748 he sent a 
representative to visit New York and Philadelphia and sound out 
public opinion on the subject of bishops. That a suffragan would 
not have any powers which would threaten the liberties of the 
people, and yet could do many useful things which were impos 
sible to a Commissary, was brought to the attention of those 
approached by the agent. When the matter was put in this way, 
most people, he said, were willing to admit that the measure might 
be a desirable one. 

In the year 1749, Sherlock entered into a private corre 
spondence with the Duke of Newcastle in which he urged the 
sending of a bishop to the colonies, at first upon the ground that 
he ought to be relieved of the burden of colonial jurisdiction. 
When Newcastle insisted that the question was too important a 
one to be decided upon personal grounds, Sherlock urged the 
importance of the measure for the good of the colonies. His argu 
ments, however, met with little favor, and Newcastle continued 
to insist that the measure was inexpedient. The next year, as we 
have already seen, Horatio Walpole also wrote to Sherlock expos 
tulating with him for starting something that might lead to 
trouble. A deputation from the committee in charge of the civil 
affairs of the dissenters had waited upon the King in 1749 and 
again in 1750 to represent to him the undesirability of the measure, 
and it is possible that their activity had something to do with the 
caution of the ministers. 

In 1750 Sherlock again memorialized the King with some 
"Considerations . . . relating to Ecclesiastical Government in his Sherlock's 
Majesty's Dominions in America," in which he advanced the usual Memorial 
arguments in favor of a colonial episcopate, insisted that there 
was no thought of settling any bishops in the colonies with 
"coercive power," and sought to answer some of the other objec 
tions which might be brought against the measure. It would seem, 
nevertheless, that he had given up hope of the immediate attain 
ment of his ends, for in the same year that he submitted this 
memorial he addressed a circular letter to the colonial clergy ask 
ing them what jurisdiction had been exercised by his predecessors 


and their representatives. He says in this letter, it is true, that the 
matter of colonial bishops was still pending, as the King had to 
go to Hanover before any action was taken, but it is unlikely that 
he would have made the enquiry had he had much hope of trans 
ferring the burden of the jurisdiction to other shoulders. As late 
as 1751 rumors were afloat among the dissenters in New Jersey 
that a bishop was about to be sent over, but there was no founda 
tion for the report, and in May, 1752, Secretary Bearcroft wrote to 
one of the Massachusetts missionaries that there were now no 
further hopes of obtaining a bishop, and that Sherlock talked of 
taking out a patent for the colonies. This he never did, but he did 
carry on the customary jurisdiction during the rest of his career. 
Seeker, who had more political discretion than Sherlock, seems to 
have shared the opinion of the Ministry that the latter's move was 
an untimely one, though for different reasons. At least, we pre 
sume he was referring to this when he wrote to Samuel Johnson 
in 1758, "The design when, some years ago it seemed to be in 
great forwardness, received a most mortifying check by means 
of an unseasonable step, which a worthy and able prelate took 
to promote it, and of which his opposers made their advantage." 
When the campaign was reopened in the sixties, the initiative 

intermittent was taken by various clerical conventions on this side of the water. 

Efforts l n the meantime, occasional pleas were made in behalf of the 

episcopate by individuals both here and in England. Bishop But 
ler, the author of the famous Analogy, had drafted a plan for a 
colonial episcopate in 1750, at the same time that Sherlock was 
presenting his memorial to the King. From America, Johnson con 
tinued his appeals for a bishop in letters to Canterbury and Lon 
don, and Smith also urged the measure from time to time. In 1760 
Henry Caner, the rector of King's Chapel, wrote to the secretary 
expressing the opinion that when the missionaries failed in their 
work it was generally due to the want of episcopal authority. 
Until that was supplied he thought the Bishop of London should 
appoint a Commissary, or, better yet, an archdeacon so far as is 
known, the only suggestion for sending such an officer to America. 
The annexation of Canada at the close of the Seven Years' War 
raised some hope that the sending of a bishop to Quebec might 
rouse less opposition than his introduction into the older colonies. 
Such a measure was suggested shortly after the close of the war 



by the Dean of Gloucester in some Queries humbly submitted to 
the friends of the Protestant Episcopacy in North America. In 
1764 Richard Peters of Philadelphia presented to the Archbishops 
of Canterbury and York some Thoughts on the Present State of 
the Church of England in America, in which he reverted to the 
old plan of sending out four suffragans. He thought that such 
suffragans could be appointed in the archdiocese of Canterbury 
by the King, under a law already existing, without having recourse 
to a special act of Parliament. He varied Bishop Compton's scheme 
further by proposing that three, instead of two, of the bishops 
should reside on the continent of North America. 

Voluntary conventions had been held by the clergy of the 
various colonies from early times, but in the later part of the Clerical 
colonial period they tended to meet more regularly than formerly ^^ ntl 
and, in the northern colonies, there was also a tendency to include Colonies 
two or three colonies in one convention. The clergy of Massa 
chusetts and Rhode Island had always been accustomed to meet 
together, and they occasionally had some of their brethren from 
Connecticut with them. The ministers in New York and New 
Jersey began holding joint annual conventions in 1756. Pennsyl 
vania conventions were frequently attended by clergymen from 
New Jersey and Maryland. In 1766 articles of organization were 
drawn up for a convention to include members from New York, 
New Jersey, and Connecticut, and other colonies were invited 
to join the movement. When the convention met in November of 
the same year it had members from Connecticut, New York, New 
Jersey, and Pennsylvania, but it does not appear that so represen 
tative a group was assembled more than once. 

The clerical conventions had been accustomed to memorialize 
the Society, the bishops, or the King in behalf of a colonial episco- Their 
pate whenever they thought they had an opportunity to be heard. 
We have already mentioned a few of their appeals. According to 
William Smith, the Pennsylvania clergy used to memorialize 
every new Bishop of London and Archbishop of Canterbury in 
favor of the measure. In 1765 two other conventions, that of New 
York and New Jersey, and that of Connecticut sent over memo 
rials which they desired the Archbishop of Canterbury to pre 
sent to the King. Seeker, however, thought it unwise to do so 



at the time, as both countries were then "on fire about the Stamp 
Act," and the two conventions apologized the next year for their 

Evidently it seemed to the members o these conventions, how- 
Southern everj that as the Churchmen in their sections had, for the most 
Opposition part ^ taken the sic j e Q t j le mot fa r country in the prevailing dis 
putes, the excitement furnished a very good reason why their 
requests should be favorably listened to. In 1771 both conventions 
renewed their petitions, and both took occasion to point out the 
loyalty of Churchmen to the Crown, and to suggest that political 
expediency, if nothing else, should dictate the strengthening of 
the Church in every way possible. The New York and New Jersey 
convention commissioned Myles Cooper, the president of King's 
College, to carry their petition to England personally. Cooper 
and Robert McKean, a New Jersey missionary, had been pre 
viously deputed by the convention to secure the support of some 
of the southern clergy for the measure, and had succeeded in get 
ting a vote of approval from a thinly attended convention in 
Virginia. This move, however, did their cause more harm than 
good, for two of the Virginia clergy, Thomas Gwatkin and 
Samuel Henley, protested against the action of the convention 
and shortly afterwards the colonial House of Burgesses gave these 
two gentlemen and some others who had sided with them a vote 
of thanks for "the wise and well-timed opposition they have made 
to the pernicious project of a few mistaken clergymen for intro 
ducing an American bishop." Thus the fact, which should have 
been known to the convention, that the southerners were, on the 
whole, opposed to the introduction of the episcopate, was unneces 
sarily underlined. Subsequently an attempt was made to obtain 
the support of the Pennsylvania clergy to the petition, but they 
declined, giving as their reasons the untimeliness of the measure 
as indicated by the action of the House of Burgesses; the fact, 
already mentioned, that they had always addressed every new 
occupant of the Sees of Canterbury and London in favor of the 
episcopate, which made them feel that supporting a supplemen 
tary petition would imply a doubt of the zeal or wisdom of their 
superiors; and the inadvisability of a small group of clergy send 
ing a petition directly to the throne, since, if rejected or ignored, 
it would not be proper to present another for some years. They 


also felt that the cause had probably been hurt by too many peti 
tions anyway. Cooper sailed for England in the fall of 1771, but 
his mission bore no fruit. In 1774 Secretary Hind of the Society 
for the Propagation of the Gospel expressed to Dr. Smith the 
fear that the prospect of obtaining an episcopate had been "thrown 
... at a greater distance than ever by the present distracted state 
of the colonies." 

The action of the Virginia House of Burgesses in condemning 
the move for episcopacy drew forth an Address from the Clergy of Remonstrance 

New York and New Jersey to the Episcopalians in Virginia, writ- ?* th , e 
i ^ J-1I i - T-i Northern 

ten by Cooper and signed by seven other ministers, which ex- clergy 
pressed great surprise that the southern Churchmen should have 
opposed a measure which was so consistent with their supposed 
principles, and in support of which the northern Episcopalians 
were unanimous. If this surprise were genuine, it is a striking 
illustration of the ignorance of the colonists of one section with 
respect to the sentiments of another, for from the time of Bishop 
Compton, if not earlier, it had been recognized that the Virginians 
were opposed to the introduction of any sort of jurisdiction which 
would impair the freedom that they enjoyed in ecclesiastical 
affairs. In succeeding years they had continued to whittle down 
the authority of their Commissaries until it was a mere shadow. 
Moreover, by now, the issue had become thoroughly impregnated 
with political implications, both for the Churchmen and for their 
opponents. The northern Churchmen thought they deserved a 
bishop because they were conspicuously loyal to the Crown, but 
the southern Churchmen were not conspicuously loyal to the 
Crown. Their sympathies for the most part were with the party 
of resistance, and they were probably not altogether uninfluenced 
by the belief of the northern leaders of this party that bishops 
would be just another agency of British tyranny. 

Similar, though milder, political motives may have had some 
part in producing the coolness with which the petition was treated 
in Pennsylvania, for many of the leading clergymen in that colony 
were in favor of the early measures of resistance, though not all 
of them proved willing, when the time came, to go the full length 
of independence. 

While the Episcopal conventions were campaigning for bishops, 
the Presbyterians and Congregationalists also organized a tri- 


colonial convention, partly, at least, for the purpose of opposing 
them. This convention was apparently inspired by the meeting of 
the Church of England clergy o New York, New Jersey, and Con 
necticut, for it included the same colonies, and held its first meet 
ing at Elizabeth five days after the Episcopalian meeting. Its 
objects were supposed to include a general consultation on the 
interests of the two denominations in the three colonies, but the 
opposition to the introduction of the episcopate had a large place 
in its activities. 

The later stages of the campaign for the episcopate were marked 
Pamphlet by an almost continuous pamphlet controversy, which may be 
Warfare briefly summarized. In his Serious Address, to which we referred 

in an earlier chapter, Noah Hobart took a mild swipe at the 
demand for bishops by saying that he did not think bishops had 
anything to do with the discipline of the Church of England, a 
view which he based on the indirect way in which their authority 
was exercised. This was in 1748, but the conflict did not become 
hot until 1763, when Jonathan May hew published some Observa 
tions on the Charter and Conduct of the Society for the Propa 
gation of the Gospel, in which he asserted that the chief design 
of the Society was to root out "Presbyterianism" and establish 
episcopacy in the colonies. This was answered by Henry Caner in 
a pamphlet which was mainly devoted to personalities, and by 
Arthur Browne, of Portsmouth, in one which admitted the design 
to introduce episcopacy, denied there was any intention of driving 
out the Puritan religion by force, and declared that if a majority 
of the colonists should, happily, become Episcopalians, there 
would be no reason why bishops should not be supported by tax 
ation. The most important reply to Mayhew, however, was an 
Answer published anonymously, but written by Seeker, which 
took the familiar ground that bishops were necessary to complete 
the Church's ministry, that temporal bishops were not desired, and 
that spiritual bishops ought to be allowed as a simple matter 
of toleration. Mayhew answered his opponents in two pamphlets, 
one directed against Caner and the other against Seeker. In the 
latter he argued that, whatever character the colonial bishops 
might have when first sent over, they would inevitably seek to 
increase their authority in every way possible. An answer to this 

; fr^fy ! M 4j '.i'', ,rff* r r ML, ^T 1 *^**** / ' - ^w** .^,-MK^ 

From an old cartoon in W. S. Perry's "History of the American Episcopal Church." 


from the pen of East Apthorp, the minister at Cambridge^ closed 
this phase of the controversy. 

The debate was reopened in 1767 with the publication of a ser 
mon preached by John Ewer, Bishop of Llandaff, before the Chandler's 
Society in which he stressed the need of bishops in the colonies, Pamphlets 
dwelling especially upon the hardships suffered by those who had 
to come to England for orders. His sermon was attacked by 
Charles Chauncy, a prominent Puritan minister of Boston, and 
William Livingston of New York, and defended by Charles Ing- 
lis, assistant minister at Trinity Church, New York. In the same 
year, Thomas Bradbury Chandler, the missionary at Elizabeth, 
published an Appeal to the Public on Behalf of the Church of 
England in America, as a result of promptings from Dr. John 
son and the convention of New York and New Jersey. In this 
document he repeated the plea for a purely spiritual episcopate, 
but in a letter which he wrote to the Bishop of London concern 
ing the work, he said, "There are some other facts and reasons 
which could not be prudently mentioned in a work of this nature, 
as the least intimation of them would be of ill consequence in 
this irritable age and country, but were they known they would 
have a far greater tendency to engage such of our superiors . . . 
as are governed altogether by political motives to espouse the 
cause of the Church of England in America." This has been taken 
as an indication that Chandler was contemplating a temporal 
establishment, but it seems more likely that it merely refers to 
the argument from the greater loyalty of the northern Church 
men which was later advanced openly. 

Dr. Chauncy replied to Chandler's effort by printing the Appeal 
Answered^ and die latter retorted with the Appeal Defended. 
Next came Chauncy's Reply, and Chandler's Appeal Further 
Defended, in which he sought to reinforce the old arguments by 
correcting his opponent's grammar. In 1769, a letter written by 
Archbishop Seeker to Horatio Walpole in 1750, in defense of the 
American episcopate, was posthumously published. This pro 
voked a Critical Commentary by Francis Blackburne, Archdeacon 
of Cleveland, a Churchman who seems to have had a good deal 
of sympathy with dissenters. Chandler again entered the lists 
in 1774 with A free Examination of the Critical Commentary in 



Was There a 

which he supported Seeker, and to which he subjoined Bishop 
Sherlock's memorial of 1750. 

In 1768 the controversy broke in the newspapers and became 
embittered by the catch phrases of popular politics. The scenes 
of this conflict were New York and Philadelphia, and the oppo 
nents of episcopacy were, in New York, the "American Whig," 
who was in reality William Livingston, and in Philadelphia the 
"Centinel," or Francis Allison, Vice-provost of the College of 
Philadelphia. Allison is quoted by one of the Pennsylvania mis 
sionaries as having said that he would have no objection to the 
coming of truly "primitive" bishops to America, and his publica 
tions were a little more moderate than Livingston's, but both men 
were convinced that the introduction of the episcopate was simply 
a part of the plot of the British government to subvert American 
liberty. They were answered vigorously by a writer who signed 
himself "Timothy Tickle" in A Whip for the American Whig, 
and more reasonably by Allison's superior, William Smith, who 
signed himself "The Anatomist." Thus the ecclesiastical issue was 
smothered by the political controversy between the colonies and 
the mother country which, in its ultimate outcome, was at last to 
make possible the sending of bishops. 

An interesting side issue to the struggle for the episcopate is 
the question of whether or not there were bishops in the colonies 
who had been consecrated by the Nonjurors. It is not very im 
portant but it furnishes one of the minor mysteries of American 
history. The persons suspected of being in such orders were John 
Talbot, with whom the reader is already well acquainted, and 
Richard Welton, who served for a time as minister of Christ 
Church, Philadelphia. The evidence in favor of their having been 
consecrated is largely indirect. John Urmiston, the drunkard whom 
Talbot helped to expel from Christ Church, wrote letters to Dr. 
Bray, to the Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the 
Gospel, and to another person, in all of which he declared that 
Talbot had convened the Pennsylvania clergy and demanded obe 
dience from them as a bishop. Commissary Henderson made a 
similar charge in 1724, saying that Talbot had returned to the 
colonies in episcopal orders two years previously and that Welton 
had arrived more recently in the same capacity. The source of 


Henderson's information is not known, however, and it is more 
than possible that he derived it from Urmiston. 

The report thus started obtained general circulation and was 
repeated by Governor Bur net of New York and a number of Report widely 
colonial clergymen, but none of these writers pretended to have Circulatc<1 
first-hand knowledge of the matter, and none of them was located 
either in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, whence accurate informa 
tion on the subject might most naturally be expected to come. 
The Society attached enough weight to these reports, coupled with 
earlier charges of Jacobitism, to dismiss Talbot from its service, 
and the story is repeated by a number of historians of the period, 
including Lothbury in his History of the Nonjurors, Perceval in a 
work on the Apostolic Succession, and the author of a work 
called Reliquiae Hernianae. All that the modern historian can say, 
however, is that, though it is possible that Talbot and Welton 
were in episcopal orders, the supposition cannot, in the absence 
of reliable first-hand testimony, be regarded as proven. 

Church in the 




EVOLUTIONS, like street fights, are likely to be as 
Position o the dangerous to the innocent bystanders as to the participants, and 
fa^ position of the Church in the American Revolution was, in 

r i r - i_ j TI_- 

some sense, that or an innocent bystander. This is not to say 
that her members did not take sides, for many o them did, but 
they did not all take the same side, and it is probable that in 
fluences other than their Churchmanship governed their decision 
for or against the rebellion. In spite of the efforts of the oppo 
nents (and some of the advocates) of episcopacy to connect that 
topic with the general controversy, the real issues of the struggle 
were not ecclesiastical, and the Church had no direct concern in 
them. Most of her ministers would probably have preferred to 
remain neutral if they could, though clearly this was an impossi 
bility. Nevertheless, the Church was profoundly affected by the 
Revolution. When it was over she was compelled to reorganize 
herself from the bottom up, to obtain from a foreign power the 
episcopate so long denied her when her members were still sub 
jects of that power, and to find entirely new methods of support 
ing her services in most of the places where she held them. She 
was obliged to do all this, moreover, at a time when she had but 
a fraction of her former number of ministers, and when she was 
regarded with suspicion in many sections where most of her 
members had been hostile to the revolutionary cause. 

It was frequently stated by the missionaries that the growth of 
the Church always meant the growth of loyalty to the Crown, and 
tn i s statement has been repeated by some reputable historians, 
but it is only partly true. Had it been entirely true, two-thirds 
of the signers of the Declaration of Independence would not have 
been Churchmen. What was true, on the whole, was that where 
the Church expanded in sections which were generally hostile to 


Loyalists in 
the Church 


it, its adherents were likely to stand out as loyal to the Crown, 
because, whether they were new arrivals or converts, they would 
be out of sympathy with the prevailing sentiments of the colony, 
and would naturally look across the water for encouragement and 
protection. It was also true that most of the missionaries of the 
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel were loyalist, partly 
because they generally served in hostile sections, partly because 
any suspicion of disloyalty would have led to their immediate dis 
missal, and partly because they were mostly High Churchmen, 
and High Churchmanship was associated with attachment to the 
Crown. When they were suspected of disaffection of any sort, it 
was generally Jacobitism, not Whiggery, with which they were 
charged. The ministers who were locally supported showed more 
sympathy with colonial aspirations, and when the test came, a 
good many of them were at least passively friendly towards inde 
pendence. To express this distinction along geographical lines 
is to say that the clergy in New England were nearly all loyalist, 
that many of those in the South (except in the colonies which 
were still supplied by missionaries), were revolutionary, and that 
those in the Middle Colonies were divided, but predominantly 
loyalist. There were, however, some exceptions to these rules, as 
we shall see later. 

The laity of the Church tended to divide upon lines similar to 
those of the clergy, not, it is probable, because they allowed them- Attitude of 
selves to be swayed by the latter so much as because they were & e Lait y 
subject to similar influences. The Church had, by this time, 
acquired something of that quality of "upper-classishness" which 
has handicapped its work in this country ever since. When it first 
invaded a colony, unless it did so under the immediate protection 
of the governor, its adherents were likely to be drawn from the 
poorer inhabitants either new settlers or persons who had not 
fitted too well into the life of the colony. As time went on, how 
ever, it drew to itself, especially in the larger centers, a good 
many of the wealthier merchants and office holders whose interests 
disposed them favorably towards the royal government, who liked 
to imitate the English gentry, and who probably desired a greater 
freedom in their personal lives than was allowed them by other 
denominations. Though these men had supported much of the 
earlier opposition to the imperialistic policy adopted by the British 


government in the sixties and seventies, they were opposed to 
violent measures, and most of them took the loyalist side when 
the issue was finally drawn, while the less prosperous classes 
tended to favor revolt. When the members of the upper classes 
did join the rebellion, however (and a few of them did so), 
they tended naturally to gravitate to positions of leadership in it. 
Leadership of Hence we find the Church supplying a respectable number of 
Churchmen in revolutionary leaders even in colonies where a majority of its 
the Revolution adherents were Toryi In ^ South, where there were few of the 
merchant class, its strongest members were naturally the large 
planters, but in the older southern colonies, where it was estab 
lished by law, the Church still had the nominal allegiance of a 
majority of the inhabitants, since the support of a dissenting min 
ister was an extra expense which would be borne only as the result 
of earnest conviction. Moreover, compared with the convictions of 
northern merchants, a larger proportion of the southern planters 
favored independence. Hence, in the South nearly all of the lead 
ers and a majority of the rank and file of the revolutionary move 
ment were drawn from the Church, though most of them showed 
but a scant regard for her welfare when she was in distress. 

Most of the ministers, as has been said, would have preferred 
Plight of the to remain neutral in the struggle if they could, but circumstances 
Tory Clergy would not allow this. A few did become Tory pamphleteers. 
Samuel Seabury, the future Bishop of Connecticut, wrote some 
Letters of a Westchester Farmer that provided effective Tory 
propaganda; Jonathan Odell, a missionary in New Jersey, directed 
some satiric verse against the Whigs; and Charles Inglis, the 
assistant rector at Trinity Church, New York, prepared an answer 
to Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Some others, who were not 
moved to literary expression by the struggle, did feel bound to 
preach sermons against rebellion, but the majority would have 
asked nothing better than the permission to go on quietly holding 
services and preaching on other questions than those of politics. 
Unfortunately, they could not hold service in conformity to the 
Prayer Book without praying for the King, and where the rebels 
were in control this was not likely to be permitted. To omit the 
royal prayers was to violate their oaths of allegiance and the vows 
taken at ordination to conform to the laws of the Church. Such 
a course might be justified if they were convinced that the revolt 


was right in principle, or it might be held allowable on the 
plea of coercion, or as a necessary means of continuing the per 
formance of their pastoral duties, and a few of the clergy who 
were not in general sympathy with the revolt accepted one or 
the other of these last two views, and omitted the prayers. The 
great majority of the loyalist ministers, however, felt their oaths 
and their allegiance must come before everything, and were con 
sequently obliged either to discontinue their services, to abandon 
their cures altogether, or to defy the rebels and go to jail Only a 
minority chose the last course. 

It was characteristic of the military situation prevailing through 
out the war that, while the British held several of the larger cities 
from time to time, they were seldom able to hold any very large 
areas outside of them. They could, and frequently did, defeat rebel 
armies in the field, and when they concentrated in a city they 
could be dislodged only with great difficulty, but they did not have 
the forces necessary to hold the country as a whole against the 
guerrilla warfare carried on by the rebels between campaigns. 
Consequently the loyalist missionaries in most parts of the coun 
try were at the mercy of the rebels. 

In New England, outside of Connecticut, most of the clergy 
were obliged to flee during the conflict, seeking refuge in New The Situation 
York, which was held by the British from 1776 until the close of in New 
the war, in Canada, or in England. When the struggle ended ngan 
there were but four missionaries in Massachusetts, one of whom 
had come from Nova Scotia during the war, one in New Hamp 
shire, and none in Rhode Island or Maine. In Boston, a consider 
able portion of the laity seem to have been in favor of the Revo 
lution, .though only one of the ministers was. It was in the tower 
of Christ Church that the lanterns were set which warned Paul 
Revere and his fellow-rider that the British troops were marching 
to Lexington and Concord, and because of what he considered 
the disloyal sentiments of the vestry, the rector, Mather Byles, 
resigned, and accepted the post of minister at Portsmouth. He 
was unable to get there, however, because that town had also 
fallen into the hands of the rebels. When the British evacuated 
Boston, Byles fled to Halifax, as did Henry Caner, rector of King's 
Chapel, and one of the neighboring ministers, William Walter, 
rector of Trinity Church, fled to New York. Some of the leading 


members of King's Chapel, being loyalists, were also obliged to 
leave town, and the Chapel eventually passed into the hands of the 
Unitarians. Christ Church and Trinity, however, had pro-Revolu 
tionary vestries, and the assistant at the latter, Samuel Parker, was 
sufficiently in favor of independence to carry on without prayers 
for the King. For a time he preached at Christ Church, also, to 
prevent its acquisition by the French, which Congress at one time 

Outside of Boston, the church at Cambridge was the first to be 
closed, the minister there being forced to flee shortly after the 
Battle of Lexington. Some of the other ministers were suffered 
to continue for a time, but were eventually silenced or expelled, 
with the exception of Edward Bass, the missionary at Newbury, 
who consented to omit the prayers for the King, and to observe 
the fasts appointed by Congress. In Rhode Island and Maine the 
missionaries were also presently expelled. In New Hampshire, 
Ranna Cossit continued to serve at Claremont, but was not allowed 
to visit other parts of the colony. Most of the ministers left before 
they were seriously molested, except William Clark, the mission 
ary at Dedham, who was imprisoned for a time at Boston. 

The troubles in Connecticut began when the colonial militia 
Connecticut returned from service with Washington at Boston. Richard Mans 
field, the missionary at Derby, who had preached against rebel 
lion, and sent a petition on behalf of loyalists to General Tryon 
in New York, which was intercepted, was forced to flee to Long 
Island where he could be protected by loyal troops. He returned 
at the end of the war. At Newtown the aged minister, John 
Beach, then in his seventy-eighth year, was imprisoned, as were 
some of the local "selectmen" also, in an effort to make them 
support the rebel "association." As they persisted in their refusal 
to do so, they were released under heavy bonds not to bear arms 
or engage in seditious actions. Beach continued to hold services 
and pray for the King throughout the war, declaring that he 
would persist until the rebels cut his tongue out. Samuel Peters, 
the minister at Hebron, was attacked by two mobs, and finally 
fled to England. He came back after the war, and divided his time 
between trying to become Bishop of Vermont and endeavoring 
to make good his title to a land grant which he had purchased 
in England. Abraham Jarvis, who was to become the second 


Bishop of Connecticut, is said by his grandson to have escaped 
the hand of a rebel assassin only because the latter was unable to 
pick a quarrel with him and would not kill him in cold blood. 
This story comes to us too indirectly to be regarded as certain, 
however. Most of Jarvis* relatives were Tories, and, according to 
the same authority, two of his nephews served in the British 
Army. Their father was shot by rebels at his own door, and an 
other brother escaped from the "vigilance committee" only by 
hiding in a wood bin. 

The Church in Connecticut suffered from its friends as well as 
its enemies, for General Tryon raided the state in 1779, burning General 
Norwalk, Fairfield, and some other villages, destroying their I^d" 5 
churches in the process. He carried the missionaries at the two 
places mentioned, Jeremiah Learning and John Sayre, back to 
New York with him. A few other ministers also left the state, 
but a majority remained at their posts. In 1782, the last year of 
the war, they sent word to the Society that they continued to 
officiate as formerly, and that they were now living in greater 
security than they had been (active hostilities ceased after York- 
town, of course), but that they received very little from the people 
because of the heavy taxes with which the latter were burdened. 
In spite of its difficulties, the Church there was flourishing, and 
many outsiders had conformed to it. 

The fact that New York City was held by the British through 
out the greater part of the war caused it to become a city of refuge *Tory Refugees 
for loyalists from all of the neighboring states, and from the m New York 
remoter parts of its own state. A considerable number of loyalist 
missionaries consequently gathered there during most of the con 
flict. Some of these later departed for England or Canada, and a 
number were given chaplaincies in the royal army, but some 
remained without other support than the stipends which the 
Society continued to pay them. They were, it is true, allowed 
rations of food and fuel by the military authorities, and apparently 
were also given a small allowance in money, but there is reason to 
suspect that the quality of the food was not always the best, for 
one missionary reported that he and his family would eat it "if 
our stomachs could accommodate themselves to worms and many 
other impurities which we (without any necessity for it) find in 
our bread." Other refugees report that supplies were plentiful but 


New York 
City Before 
the British 

The Rest of 
the State 

very dear and, as the incomes of most were small, it is probable 
that they suffered some hardship. Walter, who had means of his 
own, was able to relieve some of his colleagues while he remained 
at New York, and the Society also raised a fund for their benefit. 

During the year that preceded the British occupation of New 
York after the outbreak of hostilities, the Church there was sub 
jected to some interference. Myles Cooper, the president of King's 
College, fled the country at the beginning of the war and did not 
return. Samuel Auchmuty, the rector of Trinity Church, retired 
for a time to New Brunswick, New Jersey, and left his assistant, 
Inglis, in charge. Washington attended Trinity when he was in 
town and one of his generals told Inglis to omit the prayers for 
the King. The latter did not do so, however, and the general later 
apologized. This was before the Declaration of Independence. 
After that event, Inglis departed for Long Island, where he re 
mained until General Howe entered the city in September. Shortly 
after the British occupation, one-fourth of the city was destroyed 
in a conflagration which most contemporaries thought was started 
by rebels. Trinity Church was burned down in this fire, but the 
College and St. Paul's Chapel were saved. 

Auchmuty also returned after the British came in, but he died 
a short time later, and Inglis became rector. Thereafter, except 
for the presence of the refugees, the affairs of the Church within 
the city were carried on more or less as usual. The regular services 
were held, the parish school was kept open, its buildings being 
exempted from billets by the commandant, and the negroes were 
regularly catechized. As the Dutch Church was used for a hos 
pital, the Dutch-speaking portion of the congregation was per 
mitted to use St. George's Chapel. The English-speaking portion 
had previously hired a Presbyterian minister and become hostile 
to the Episcopal Church. Most of them were now with the rebels. 

On Staten Island and Long Island the presence of British 
troops also made it possible to keep up the services of the Church 
during part of the time, though both places were exposed to occa 
sional raids from the neighboring states. In some places on Long 
Island the royal troops proved nearly as disturbing as the rebels. 
At Huntington they used the church for a barracks. At Hemp- 
stead the parish school was used for a guardroom, and the min 
ister's house and farm were also used and damaged by the troops. 


Leonard Cutting, the minister, wrote to the Society, "Where the 
army is, oppression (such as, in England, you can have no concep 
tion of) universally prevails." At Jamaica, on the other hand, 
things were so peaceable that the parish raised eight hundred 
pounds by a lottery, which it invested in a glebe. At Brooklyn the 
war was actually the cause of introducing the services of the 
Church, for James Sayre, who had been driven away from Fred- 
ericksburg in Dutchess County, began preaching in the Dutch 
Church three Sundays out of four. 

The rest of the state was generally in control of the rebels and 
most of the ministers were driven out sooner or later. Seabury, 
who, as we have seen, had written some pamphlets against the 
rebellion, was carried into Connecticut early in the war by some 
irregulars and kept prisoner for a time, his family being subjected 
to some indignities during his absence. When Westchester County 
fell into the hands of the colonial forces, he and Wetmore were 
both expelled. He supported himself by practicing medicine in 
New York until 1778, when he became chaplain in a loyalist 
regiment. Sooner or later most of the other ministers were also 
herded into New York City. Munro, at Albany, resigned early in 
the war to become a chaplain. Stuart, after the flight of his 
Indians, was held prisoner at Schenectady for three years, when he 
was sent to Canada after giving bonds to procure the release of 
an American colonel in exchange. 

The only minister in New York who was definitely pro-Revo 
lutionary was Samuel Provoost, who had been assistant at Trinity 
for a time, but resigned in 1769 because his sentiments were 
already too disloyal for the vestry. During the war he served in 
the army. A considerable number of the parishioners of Trinity 
had been in sympathy with the Revolution, and had left the city 
before the arrival of the British. As soon as Inglis and the royal 
troops had departed, after the treaty of peace in 1783, the loyalist 
vestry elected Benjamin Moore, who had been assistant minister, 
their rector. When the revolutionists returned to the city, they had 
this election annulled and elected Provoost instead. He subse 
quently became the first Bishop of New York. 

In Pennsylvania a number of the leading clergymen supported 
the revolutionary movement in its early stages. When the Conti- Pennsylvania 
nental Congress recommended a general fast in 1775, Richard 


Peters, the rector of Christ Church, observed it, on the advice of 
his vestry. This, however, was not a proof of decided Whig lean 
ings, as a number of the Tory ministers felt justified in doing the 
same, to keep peace in their parishes, since Congress had not yet 
openly declared rebellion. Peters resigned on September 23, 1775, 
because of ill health, and Jacob Duche, his chief assistant, was 
elected rector. Duche was a strong Whig, and served as first 
chaplain of the Continental Congress. After the Declaration of 
Independence, Duche called a meeting of his vestry which voted 
to omit the prayers for the King for the sake of "the peace and 
well-being of the Churches." When the British occupied the city 
in 1777, however, he became a loyalist, and when they were forced 
to evacuate the city he fled to England. 

The other assistant at Christ and St. Peter's was William White, 
William a young man who had been appointed to the position in 1772, 

White anc } w ho was a brother-in-law of Robert Morris, the financier of 

the Revolution. White had felt some hesitancy about the pro 
priety of revolt, but when most of his countrymen seemed in 
favor of it he felt it his duty to follow them, and adhered unflinch 
ingly to his decision thereafter. He became chaplain of the Con 
tinental Congress when it was running away from Philadelphia 
during one of the darkest moments of the war. When the city was 
retaken, he was elected rector of Christ Church, but accepted only 
with the understanding that he should resign if Duche was later 
able to return. He continued at his post during the war, and was, 
at one time, the only Episcopalian minister in the state. 

William Smith, the Provost of the College of Philadelphia, had 
William participated in the early resistance to British imperialism, and 

Smith had served on one or two committees of correspondence. He had 

been opposed to declaring independence, and had written some 
pamphlets against it, signed "Cato," but accepted it after it was 
declared. He also preached a funeral sermon on General Mont 
gomery, killed in the siege of Quebec, which was considered in 
sufficiently patriotic by the rebels, and when the British were 
advancing on Philadelphia he was placed under surveillance by 
Congress as a suspicious character. He fled with the rebels, how 
ever, and did not return until they did. In 1779, the charter of the 
College was annulled by the state legislature, and its property 
transferred to the newly organized University of Pennsylvania, 



the pretext for this move being that the College had abandoned 
its non-denominational character, though this seems to have been 
untrue. Smith thereupon moved to Maryland and settled down 
at Chester, whose rector had become a refugee, and where he 
presently organized a new institution which he called Washington 
College, after the general, who was one of its patrons. The other 
Pennsylvania ministers were all eventually expelled from the state, 
though Barton remained at Lancaster until 1778. In 1779 John 
Andrews, who had been a loyalist, came into the colony from 
Maryland, and decided that necessity justified his acceptance 
of the revolutionary government. 

In New Jersey all of the ministers, except Robert Blackwell at 
Gloucester, closed their churches after they had been threatened New Jersey 
with prosecution and one of them, William Ayers, had been 
dragged from the pulpit for saying the prayers for the King. 
Blackwell, who was in sympathy with the revolt, omitted the 
prayers. Some of the missionaries fled from the colony, but Uzal 
Ogden, William Ayers, William Frazer and Abraham Beach 
remained at their posts, and in 1782, when the war seemed about 
over, and they felt that something must be done to check the 
decay of religion and morals, they resumed their services without 
the crucial prayers. 

In the South, as has already been said, a larger proportion of 
the ministers were sympathetic to the Revolution, though those The South 
actively favoring it were probably not in a majority except in 
South Carolina, where only five of the twenty clergy were loyalist. 
In Virginia and Maryland those definitely in favor of the revolt 
are estimated to have been about one-third of the clergy, but it is 
evident that not all of the remaining two-thirds were strongly 
loyalist, for a Virginia convention voted to omit the prayers for 
the King after the Declaration of Independence. The few minis 
ters in Georgia and North Carolina, with the exception of the 
rector of Savannah, who was an absentee, were supported by the 
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. It is not surprising, 
therefore, that the only revolutionary ministers in these two 
colonies were the Rev. Charles Pettigrew, who married the daugh 
ter of a colonel in the Continental Army, and the Rev. William 
Percy, the head of Bethesda College. 

Of the Virginia rebels, the two most prominent were James 


Madison, the first bishop of the diocese, and David Griffith, who 
was elected to that office but not consecrated. In South Carolina, 
Robert Smith, the future bishop, and another minister were ban 
ished for their revolutionary sympathies when the state was under 
British control. Henry Purcell, of the same state, served as chap 
lain and judge advocate in the Continental Army. Thomas John 
Claggett, the first Bishop of Maryland, was friendly to the revolt, 
though he had some scruples about repudiating his former oaths. 
It might be supposed, from what has been said so far, that the 
Situation at Revolution would have left the Episcopal Church in the northern 
the Close of states in a much weaker condition than in the southern, but 
the War actually the situation was nearly the opposite. If we should draw 

a heavy line across the northern and eastern borders of Connecti 
cut, and another across the southern border of Maryland, we would 
enclose between them the area within which the Church recu 
perated most rapidly from the effects of the Revolution. Outside 
of this area the recovery was, on the whole, more rapid in the 
states to the northward than it was in those to the southward, 
and within it the state in which the Church was in the strongest 
position at the close of the war was Connecticut, where, as we 
have seen, the loyalism of the clergy was the most unanimous. It 
would seem evident, therefore, that, while the Tory sympathies 
of the northern clergy undoubtedly increased the prejudices 
against the Episcopal Church, other factors must also be taken 
into consideration if we wish to explain its undoubted decline 
after the Revolution. To attempt to account for that decline solely 
on the basis of the Church's loyalist tendencies, as some writers 
have done, is to fall into the common error of over-simplifying 
a complex problem. 

Some of the other causes of the Church's decline suggest them- 
Causes o the selves at once when we consider how her position was affected 
church's ^ t k ^^^g-^. ' m t h e political status of the country. As the charter 
Decline 1 i ,* r t TX r 1 ^ ( i 

of the Society for the Propagation or the Gospel permitted it to 

work only with the "foreign plantations" (/. <?., colonies) of the 
British Empire, its support was necessarily withdrawn from the 
American Episcopal Church as soon as the independence of the 
United States was recognized. In Connecticut most of the par 
ishes, and in the other states some of them, were able to raise 
sufficient support locally to make it possible for their ministers to 



struggle along, but in a great many places the people were unable 
or unwilling to do this, and consequently the Society's mission 
aries would have been obliged to leave these communities even if 
their political views had been unexceptionable. 

Moreover, whatever consciousness o unity had been imparted 
to the colonial Church by its general dependence upon England, 
by the shadowy jurisdiction of the Bishop of London, and by the 
frequent communication of its leading ministers with the English 
ecclesiastical authorities, was lost to it after the Revolution, and, 
at the same time, the need for American bishops, which had been 
chronic in colonial times, now became acute, for it would never 
do, even if it were permitted, for the Church to have constant 
recourse to a foreign power for the replenishment of her ministry. 
To many, however, it seemed that this need would be a long 
time in being filled. Actually, bishops were obtained within a few 
years after the close of the Revolution, but even so the delay was 
sufficient to give some of the more active and better-supplied de 
nominations an opportunity of gaining ground against the 

These difficulties, however, confronted the Church everywhere 
throughout the country, and some of them operated more strongly Causes 
in the North than in the South. Why, then, was the decline of the 
Church in the South so strongly marked ? The immediate reason, 
of course, was that the Church was disestablished that is, de 
prived of all public support in all of the southern states either 
during the Revolution or immediately after it. This circumstance, 
itself, requires an explanation, however, and it is also obvious that 
it could not of itself, since no rival establishment was set up, 
account for the widespread defection from the Episcopal Church 
which followed. Deeper reasons for this defection must be sought. 

In the imagination of most northerners the South is commonly 
thought of as having been populated chiefly by wealthy and aristo- opposition o 
cratic planters and their negro slaves. The incompleteness of this 
picture at once becomes apparent when we reflect that, though it 
took a great many more slaves than masters to operate a planta 
tion, yet the negroes were never in a majority in more than one 
or two of the southern states. Of what then was the rest of the 
white population composed? It was composed partly of small 
planters and farmers in the mountainous uplands, partly of white 



servants, indentured or hired, and partly of artisans, free laborers 
and petty merchants in short, of the elements which compose the 
proletariat and lower middle class in all societies. For such people, 
life is always a harsh struggle, and in the South it was rendered 
especially so by the competition of slave labor. They envied the 
comfort and luxury of the wealthy planters and smarted under 
their contempt. Naturally, therefore, they hated them. Until the 
attacks of the abolitionists had welded the South into political 
unity, they always opposed the planters in politics, and once they 
were free to do so they opposed them in religion also. Moreover, 
they found the other denominations more congenial to their 
tastes than the Episcopal Church would have been even if it had 
not labored under the disadvantage of being the Church of the 
aristocracy. The preaching of the other ministers was probably 
more earnest and certainly more emotional than that of the 
Episcopalians. However much they might differ in other respects, 
Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and irregulars all agreed in 
teaching a conversion theology /. <r., a theology which proclaimed 
the need of a sudden and sweeping change from a life of sin to a 
life of sanctity and such a theology has always had a tremendous 
appeal to the emotionally deprived. Finally, as T. C Hall has 
pointed out in his useful and suggestive study of The Religious 
Background of American Culture, in spite of the Cavalier tradi 
tion, most of the settlers in the South, as in the other colonies, 
were drawn from the lower classes in England, who have always 
been sympathetic to dissent. 

In our study of the colonial Church in the South we have 
Growth of already had occasion to notice a rapid growth of dissent in the 
Dissent decades preceding the Revolution, and in one or two colonies we 

found reason to believe that the dissenters were already in a 
majority, though prevented by property qualifications and other 
restrictions from gaining control of the government. It is obvious, 
however, that as long as the Episcopal Church was established in 
that region, so that everyone had to contribute to its support, many 
whose natural sympathies were with other forms of Christianity 
would remain in nominal allegiance to it in order to avoid the 
added expense of supporting a dissenting minister. When the 
Revolutionary upheaval gave them an opportunity, such people 
naturally sided with the dissenters in demanding disestablishment. 



and when that was obtained, they as naturally transferred their 
support to religious denominations that suited them better, In 
Virginia they weakened the Church further by depriving it of its 

In obtaining disestablishment they were helped by the political 
philosophy which was used to rationalize the revolutionary move- The 
ment, and by the widespread prevalence of a non-Christian and Revolutionary 
sometimes anti-Christian religious philosophy among the educated l sop ^ 
classes. The principal tenets of eighteenth century political liberal 
ism were religious freedom, free speech, freedom of the press, eco 
nomic individualism ("laissez-faire"), and democratic, or at least 
republican government. These were the ideals, therefore, which 
were used to inspire the revolutionary armies and to guide the 
debates of Congress. To the wealthier leaders of the movement 
many of them were probably not much more than convenient 
catch phrases, which might prove dangerous if the people were 
allowed to take them too seriously, and as soon as the war was 
over, a struggle, eventually successful, was begun for the estab 
lishment of a government that would adequately protect the rights 
of property from the inroads of crazy idealists and hungry debtors. 
In the meantime, however, some concessions had to be made to 
the demands of the poorer classes that their aspirations be given 
some practical satisfaction, and about the easiest concession which 
the wealthy could make was to permit the disestablishment of the 
Church. At the worst, this was better than exposing themselves to 
economic loss, and to those who were in sympathy with the Deistic 
view that no religious differences mattered much, so long as every 
one worshipped a Supreme Being, the sacrifice was not even 
painful. Except for tie Deists, the planter class continued in 
nominal allegiance to the Church, but for some time the support 
which most of them gave it was less than half-hearted, and the 
infusion of a new religious force, that of the Evangelicals, was 
required before Episcopalianism again became very active in the 

While recognizing, however, that the Episcopal Church ex 
perienced a serious decline following the American Revolution, we Decline of the 
should avoid exaggerating this decline. Too much has been said Church not to 
and written about the deadness of the Church at this period. Had 
it been dead, it could not, in a little more than six years after the 



close of the war, have developed diocesan organizations in a ma 
jority of the states, united these into a national body along lines 
for which it had no immediate precedent, and obtained from Eng 
land and Scotland the number of bishops necessary to guarantee a 
continuance of the succession. In view of the difficulties which 
confronted it, and the lack of experience of Churchmen in united 
action, the achievements of the Church in those years are, in fact, 

Even during the war some beginnings had been made towards 
Beginnings of diocesan organizations in two of the states, though for the time 
being they proved abortive. Shortly after the Declaration of Inde 
pendence, as we have seen, a convention met in Virginia and 
voted to omit the prayers for the King from the liturgy. Before 
the war was over, however, the legislature had surrounded the 
Church with so many restrictions that in 1784 the clergy could 
do no more than meet and petition for the repeal of the restraining 
laws. In Maryland the clergy had been deprived of public support 
early in the struggle as the result of a clause in the state bill of 
rights which called for religious freedom. Shortly after this they 
were required to take oaths of allegiance to the new government, 
and some of them, holding this to be inconsistent with their ordi 
nation vows, left the state. In 1779 the legislature passed an act 
providing for the election of vestries in existing parishes, and turn 
ing the Church property over to them, but it left the clergy de 
pendent on voluntary contributions, except for what support they 
could derive from their glebes. In 1780, thanks to the exertions 
of William Smith and some others, a convention was assembled, 
composed of three clergymen and a number of laymen. This con 
vention petitioned the Assembly for the public support of religion, 
but subsequently withdrew the petition because of the troublous 
state of the times. It also voted to call the body which it repre 
sented the Protestant Episcopal Church. This was the first use of 
the present name of the Church by an official organization, but the 
phrase was not a new one. It had sometimes been used in the 
colonial period to describe the ecclesiastical position of the Church 
of England, and was employed by the Rev. Thomas Barton in a 
petition which he addressed to the Pennsylvania legislature in 
behalf of his fellow clergy in 1778. The name was subsequently 
adopted for the whole Church more by common consent than 

Name of the 


because anyone especially advocated it. The word Protestant, 
though originally applied only to the Lutherans, had by then 
come to mean any form of Western Christianity not owning al 
legiance to the Pope, and as episcopacy was the most conspicuous 
feature which distinguished our Church from the other non- 
Roman Catholic bodies, this seemed the most natural way to 
describe it. The only alternative suggested, and that only by one 
or two, was "Reformed Episcopal Church," which, historically, 
would have implied a Calvinistic origin, though it was probably 
not so intended. 

After the war was over, a more general reorganization was set 
on foot, which was to result eventually in the formation of the Leadership of 
general constitution which has formed the basis of the Church's White 
national life ever since. This movement had a more or less spon 
taneous origin in several states, and many people contributed to its 
advancement, but its most important leader, the coordinator of its 
various elements, was William White, whom we have recently 
met as the revolutionary rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia. 
White, who was thirty-six at the close of the Revolution, having 
been born in 1747, was the son of a wealthy landowner and man 
of affairs in Philadelphia, who had held various public offices both 
in Pennsylvania and Maryland. His father-in-law was a former 
mayor of Philadelphia, and his sister's husband was Robert Morris, 
the financier of the Revolution. Thus he was one who could claim 
the right to leadership by inheritance and association as well as on 
the strength of his own abilities. He had been educated at the Col 
lege of Philadelphia and had studied theology under William 
Smith and under his own predecessors at Christ Church, Richard 
Peters and Jacob Duche. Having directed his steps toward the 
ministry from an early period, he went to England as soon as he 
was old enough to be ordained and, on his return to America in 
1772, was elected assistant-minister of Christ Church, becoming 
rector during the Revolution, and serving as Chaplain of the Con 
tinental Congress throughout the war. Though he had embraced 
the cause of independence from a sense of duty, he was of too 
moderate a temper to carry over his political sentiments into his 
personal or ecclesiastical relationships and continued, whenever 
possible, a friendly intercourse with his fellow clergymen on the 
Tory side. As he was about the only outstanding Whig minister 


who displayed such moderation, he naturally became the one to 
whom the leaders of both sides turned with their ideas and sug 
gestions after the war was over, and he was enough of a statesman 
to make the most of this position, and to coordinate his own ideas 
with the suggestions which he received from others, until an 
effective union was developed. 

In exercising this leadership White was helped further by the 
His central position and importance of the parish of which he was 

Theological rector and by the general moderation of his religious views. 
Position White's theological position has been frequently misunderstood, 

not because it was at all obscure or uncertain, but because it could 
not be made to fit very well under any of the party labels that 
were prevalent in his later life. His own views, as he himself tells 
us, underwent very little change after he had reached maturity, 
but those about him were not so stedfast, and by the middle years 
of his life, the party which had formed the natural background 
for his opinions had largely disappeared and been replaced by 
one with which he had very little sympathy. He belonged, in fact, 
to the older school of Low Churchmanship, which preceded the 
Evangelicals. The members of this school were orthodox in their 
theology, unlike the latitudinarians, who represented the extreme 
phase of their party, but they were disposed to tolerate a fairly 
wide variety of opinions so long as there was no departure from 
essentials. They believed in the Apostolic origin of the episcopate, 
but in the absence of a specific command for its continuance they 
were unwilling to condemn as altogether invalid the ministries of 
those denominations which had been compelled to sacrifice it, and 
they were not disposed to rate the authority of bishops too highly, 
even within the Church. They were disposed to emphasize, per 
haps too much, the rational and intellectual side of Christianity 
but they never yielded its supernatural claims altogether in favor 
of mere rationalism. If they were, as a rule, somewhat lacking in 
fire, they were strong in judiciousness and moderation, and they 
were capable of appreciating the value of a comprehensive Church. 
It was under the leadership of men who held views such as these 
that the central movement in the process of union was carried on, 
which fact accounts for a certain receptiveness to innovation, and 
willingness to tone down some of the distinctive traditions of the 
Church that characterized that movement. Eventually, the need of 



including the High Churchmen, and especially those of Connecti 
cut, within the union compelled the adoption of a more conserva 
tive attitude, but the handiwork of the Low Church organizers 
can still be seen in the fabric of our Church in such things as the 
inclusion of laymen in ecclesiastical councils, the slight authority 
given to bishops over independent parishes, the curtailment of 
their authority in other respects by standing committees and 
diocesan conventions, the omission of the Athanasian Creed from 
the Prayer Book, the permission to omit the sign of the cross in 
Baptism, and to substitute the "place of departed spirits" for "hell" 
in the Apostles* Creed. 

Geographically, the union movement was primarily the work 
of the middle states, though in saying this we must, for the mo- 
ment, include Maryland in that category, for it was there that 
William Smith, perhaps the second most important leader of the 
movement, was then resident, and that state was represented in all 
of the early conventions. In New England, outside of Connecticut, 
the Episcopalians were receptive to unity, and under the leadership 
of Samuel Parker they cooperated in some of the earlier phases of 
the movement, but after the consecration of Bishop Seabury in 
Connecticut they tended to hold aloof until they were sure that 
the validity of his orders would be accepted by the rest of the states. 
Had it not been, a schism would have been created in the Church, 
and the rest of New England would naturally have allied itself 
with Connecticut. That state had, as we have seen, retained a 
larger complement of ministers than any other after the Revolu 
tion (fourteen out of twenty), and it had, moreover, a strong inde 
pendent tradition which was strengthened by its having become, 
in consequence of the flight of the Tory clergymen elsewhere, the 
chief heir of colonial High Churchmanship. Connecticut Church 
men were as desirous as any others of seeing the Church united 
along national lines, but they sought to attain that end in their 
own way. Because of the importance which they attached to epis 
copacy, it seemed to them improper to undertake the reorganiza 
tion of the Church until bishops had been obtained. Their first 
move, therefore, was to try to supply this need for themselves, after 
which they probably thought that they would be in a position to 
take the lead in reorganizing the Church generally. It so happened, 
however, that by the time they had obtained a bishop, the process 

Leadership of 
& Q Middle 

ization of 
the Church 


Attitude of 
the South 


of organization had gone far enough elsewhere so that it could not 
be turned into new lines, and in the end their chief function in the 
movement was to act as a check on its more radical tendencies. 

In the South, the prevailing type of Churchmanship tended 
towards the opposite extreme. As we have seen, southern Episco 
palians had cared but little for the obtaining of American bishops 
in colonial times, and while they now recognized the necessity of 
doing so, they desired to curtail their power in every way possible. 
Moreover, the Church in the South was greatly weakened by the 
shock of disestablishment and, in Virginia especially, it was sur 
rounded with numerous restrictions by the legislature. Virginia 
and South Carolina were represented in some of the preliminary 
conventions, but the only clergyman in either state who took an 
active interest in the process of unification in its early stages was 
David Griffith, the rector of Fairfax Parish, Virginia. 

The first public suggestion of a plan of union and reorganiza 
tion was made by White in 1782, in a pamphlet called The Case 
of the Episcopal Churches in the United States Considered. At the 
time that this was published, the active hostilities of the Revolution 
had ceased for some time but no satisfactory terms of peace had 
yet been reached, and some proposals which were thought to rep 
resent the farthest point likely to be conceded by the British gov 
ernment had lately been rejected by Congress. It seemed likely, 
therefore, that a long time would ensue during which the United 
States would be practically independent without having their 
freedom recognized by the mother country, as had been the case 
with the Dutch Republic after its revolt from Spain, which was 
the only modern precedent that people had to judge by. 

If this had happened, it is obvious that the obtaining of bishops 
from England would have been impossible, and also that it would 
no longer have been possible for candidates to be ordained to the 
lower grades of the ministry there. The Church in this country 
would have been in danger of disintegrating for want of organi 
zation and leadership. White, therefore, proposed that until the 
episcopate could be obtained (and only until then), the Church 
should be organized in a federal system of three grades, the min 
isters of the smallest unit (co-extensive with the state) to have 
collectively the power of ordination. The Church was to make a 
formal declaration of its preference for episcopacy, and .of its 




intention of obtaining it as soon as possible, but in the meantime 
White felt that the necessity of the case would fully justify the 
resort to presbyterial ordination, and he cited expressions from 
Cranmer, Hooker, Usher, and other leading English divines to 
support this view. 

As it turned out, a treaty of peace was finally arranged within 
a very short time after the publication of this pamphlet, and before 
it had been widely circulated, so that the considerations which led 
to its chief proposal were never fully understood, and it created a 
temporary distrust of White among those who regarded episco 
pacy as essential to the Church. Nevertheless, it made an important 
contribution to the movement for reorganization, and two of its 
suggestions had an important effect upon the future constitution 
of the Episcopal Church. The procedure of completing a federal 
constitution before obtaining the episcopate was, in fact, the one 
followed outside of Connecticut, and besides having the advantage 
of uniting the Church before its various parts had become so crys 
tallized as to make fusion difficult, it proved more successful than 
the Connecticut plan in obtaining the episcopal succession from 
England. The other proposal was the inclusion of lay repre 
sentatives in the governing body of the Church, which was here 
tor the first time publicly advanced as a principle, though a prac 
tical example of it had already been furnished in Maryland. This 
policy was soon adopted in every state except Connecticut, and 
eventually there, and has become an important feature of our 
ecclesiastical constitution. Moreover, perhaps precisely because its 
main argument was objectionable to many, the pamphlet led to 
a widespread discussion of the problems involved in the reorgani 
zation of the Church, and it naturally gave to its author a promi 
nent place in this discussion. Shortly after its publication, he began 
to receive letters on the subject from clergymen of all parties, com 
mencing with some from Charles Inglis in May, 1783, just before 
Inglis left New York, and continuing in such numbers as to con 
stitute White a sort of unofficial committee of correspondence 
on the affairs of the Church, before any official committees had 
been appointed. 

In August, 1783, the Maryland Episcopalians held a second con- The Second 
vention under the presidency of William Smith. Earlier in the Maryland 
year Smith and the Rev. Thomas Gates, another clergyman of Convcntio11 


the state, had petitioned for permission to introduce a law that 
would open the way for a revision of the liturgy, but the desired 
measure had not been passed. When the Convention met it 
adopted a declaration of rights for the "Protestant Episcopal 
Church," asserting her continuity with the Church of England in 
the colonies and her consequent title to the property held by that 
Church in Maryland, her right to "preserve herself as an entire 
Church," her need of a threefold ministry (bishops, priests, and 
deacons), and the propriety of amending her liturgy to meet new 
conditions. They also elected Dr. Smith to be their bishop as soon 
as he could obtain consecration from England. The declaration 
of rights was submitted to Governor William Paca, an Episco 
palian and a former pupil of Smith's at the College of Philadel 
phia, with the suggestion that he obtain legislative sanction for it 
if he thought such sanction necessary. Paca replied that the ap 
proval of the legislature was not required, as "every denomination 
of clergy are to be deemed adequate judges of their own spiritual 
rights and of the ministerial commission and authority necessary 
to the due administration of the ordinances of religion among 
themselves" in other words, the internal arrangements of the 
Church were no business of the State's. 

In November, 1783, White suggested to his vestry a meeting o 
The Pennsyl- committees from the vestries of the three churches in Philadelphia 
vania Declara- to confer with the city clergy on the formation of a representative 
Principles body ^ or & e Church in Pennsylvania. These committees, when 
they assembled, thought that plans for organization should have 
the concurrence of all Episcopalians in the United States, and as a 
step in that direction, a meeting of clergy and laity from various 
parts of Pennsylvania was called for May 24, 1784. This convention 
adopted a set of fundamental principles to the effect that the Epis 
copal Church in the United States should be independent of all 
foreign authority, that it had full powers to regulate its own affairs, 
that it should maintain the "Doctrines of the Gospel" as proposed 
by the Church of England and conform to the worship of that 
Church as far as possible, that it should have a threefold ministry, 
that canons should be made by representatives of the clergy and 
laity jointly, and that no powers should be delegated to a general 
ecclesiastical government except such as could not be conveniently 
exercised by state conventions. It also resolved that a standing 



committee be appointed to correspond with committees of other 
states with a view to the formation of a general constitution. 

Between the calling of this convention and its assembling, an 
other meeting had been held which also took an important step The Meeting 
toward the organization of General Convention. In January, 1784, ^ New ick 
Abraham Beach, the rector of New Brunswick, New Jersey, had 
written to White expressing his alarm at the silence which seemed 
to prevail as to measures for the revival of the Church. He thought 
the first thing to do was to secure a meeting of as many of the 
clergy as possible, and, as the affairs of the Corporation for the 
Relief of Widows and Orphans of Clergymen in Pennsylvania, 
New York, and New Jersey were badly in need of attention, he 
suggested that a meeting of that corporation be called in the spring, 
and that an attempt be made to get together as many of the clergy 
who were not members as possible at the same time. In a later 
letter he suggested including respectable laymen also. White 
promptly accepted this proposal and the meeting was held at New 
Brunswick on May llth. The corporation merely voted to hold 
another meeting in the fall, but the clergy and laymen who were 
present held a separate meeting in which they appointed a commit 
tee to wait upon the clergy of Connecticut and ask their concur 
rence in plans for the rehabilitation of the Church. Other 
committees were appointed in the three states represented to cor 
respond with each other and with other persons "for the purpose 
of forming a continental representation of the Episcopal Church." 

While these beginnings were being made in the Middle States, 
the Connecticut clergy had been taking steps for the restoration Seabury 
of the Church in the way that seemed best to them. Shortly after Elected 

i r i_iu i_ i Bishop of 

the treaty or peace, ten of them held a secret meeting in which Connecticut 

they voted to ask either Jeremiah Learning or Samuel Seabury 

to become their bishop, promising obedience to whichever should 

be consecrated. The delegation which was sent to New York, 

where both of these men were then living, offered the post first 

to Learning, who declined because of his advanced age, and then 

to Seabury, who, being then in the prime of life, felt it his duty 

to accept. He sailed for England armed with a letter from the 

Connecticut clergy to the Archbishops, in which they gave as one 

of their reasons for desiring a bishop the dangerous proposal 

lately made by White at Philadelphia, and with three letters of 


recommendation from Learning, Inglis, and Moore in New York. 
Seabury was instructed to seek consecration in England, if possible, 
but if not, to try to obtain it from the Nonjuring bishops in Scot 
land. In England the Archbishops said they were unable to ordain 
him because they had no right to send a bishop to Connecticut 
without the consent of that state, because he would probably not 
be received there, because no definite provision had been made 
for his support, and because the oaths of allegiance could not be 
dropped without, at least, the consent of the King in Council, and 
this could not be obtained unless the State of Connecticut should 
signify its willingness to have a bishop reside within its jurisdic 
tion. Later on they also objected to the fact that his election had 
not been concurred in by the laity and that there was no definitely 
organized diocese over which he could exercise jurisdiction. Find- 
His ing, after repeated attempts, that these objections could not be re- 

Consecration moved, Seabury at length applied to the Scottish bishops, who 
were not dependent on the government, and was consecrated by 
Bishops Kilgour, Petrie and Skinner late in 1784, the service taking 
place in a chapel on the top floor of Skinner's home. 

At the time of his consecration, Seabury entered into a con 
cordat with the Scotch bishops in which he agreed to accept the 
whole doctrine of the Gospel, to regard bishops as independent of 
lay control, and to accommodate the worship and discipline of the 
Church in Connecticut as nearly as possible to that of Scotland. 
The two Churches were also declared to be in full communion 
with one another and pledged to brotherly intercourse. The chief 
significance of this document is that it led to the inclusion of some 
features of the Scottish liturgy in our Communion Service. On his 
return to the United States, Seabury was readily accepted as bishop 
in Connecticut, but he met with opposition elsewhere. Though 
there could be no serious doubt as to the validity of his orders, he 
was objectionable personally to many because of his stand during 
the Revolution, and others objected to his having obtained conse 
cration from a Church which they regarded as schismatic from 
the Church of England. 

When the committee from the New Brunswick meeting visited 
Connecticut in June, 1784, Seabury was still trying to obtain con 
secration in England and the local clergy, while expressing sym 
pathy with the desire for union, were unwilling to take any action 


until they had a bishop. In Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 
however, a joint convention, held in the fall of 1784, ratified the 
principles of the Pennsylvania state convention with two minor 

The next general meeting was held in New York in October of 
the same year under the presidency of William Smith. The Middle 
States and Maryland all sent delegations of ministers and laymen, 
and clergymen from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut 
also participated. David Griffith was present from Virginia, but 
was unable to take an active part because the clergy there were 
still surrounded by legal restrictions. The convention recom 
mended certain principles of union to the states, the most impor 
tant being that there should be a General Convention of clerical 
and lay deputies, that the doctrines and as much as possible of 
the liturgy of the Church of England should be retained, and that 
the first meeting of the proposed General Convention should be 
held in Philadelphia during September, 1785. 

That convention, when it met, contained representatives from 
all of the Middle States, and from Maryland, Virginia, and South The Conven- 
Carolina as well, but none from New England. The Massachusetts tion o 1785 
Episcopalians found the distance too great, and those of Connect 
icut absented themselves because the principles set forth at New 
York had failed to provide for the presidency of a bishop. The 
convention, after electing White president, proceeded to appoint 
a committee of which William Smith was the chairman, to draft 
a constitution, revise the liturgy, and formulate a plan for obtain 
ing the episcopate. The work of revising the liturgy was continued 
by the committee chiefly by White and Smith after the conven 
tion adjourned, though on lines which it had approved, but the 
constitution and the plan for securing bishops were completed and 
approved by the convention. The plan took especial care to avoid 
the objections which had been made to Seabury's consecration. 
The General Convention was to address the English bishops and 
request them to confer episcopal orders on such men as might be 
chosen by the state conventions, the state conventions were ad 
vised to take special pains to make it clear that the candidates 
were elected with the concurrence of the laity, and the deputies 
present were desired to request their civil rulers to certify 


that the application was not contrary to the constitutions and laws 
of their several states. 

Three states, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, complied 
Bishops with these suggestions and elected bishops. In Pennsylvania the 

Elected in choice, of course, fell on White. Virginia elected Griffith and New 
York chose Samuel Provoost, rector of Trinity. Maryland, as we 
have seen, had elected William Smith two years earlier. The New 
York choice, though inevitable, was not altogether a fortunate one. 
Provoost had been an enthusiastic revolutionist and he was not 
able to forget political differences in dealing with ecclesiastical 
affairs. His opposition to Seabury amounted almost to a mania, 
and it took all of White's adroitness and diplomacy to keep him 
from precipitating an open break with Connecticut. The applica 
tion to the civil rulers was successful, not only in the states, but 
with Congress also, both the president of that body, R. H. Lee, and 
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, John Jay, supplying the desired 
certificates, while John Adams, our minister to Great Britain, also 
exerted himself in behalf of the measure. Jay and Lee were Epis 
copalians, but the cooperation of Adams was an example of the 
general spirit of religious toleration which ruled the times. 

The political obstacles having thus been overcome, an ecclesias- 
The ^ ca l one threatened to arise, and that as a result of the Convention's 

"Proposed own action. White and Smith, continuing the work of revision 
Book" begun at the Convention of 1785, had issued a "Proposed Book," 

which, while professing a desire to adhere to the basic usages of 
the Church of England, represented, in fact, a strong expression 
of the Protestant tradition of the Church, omitting the Athanasian 
and the Nicene Creeds, the "descent into hell" from the Apostles' 
Creed, and all expressions implying baptismal regeneration. It also 
permitted the omission of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism, and 
made other changes which were obnoxious to the more conserva 
tive members of the Church. Some of these changes probably 
went beyond what the revisers themselves desired, and were in 
cluded to conciliate the extremists, for both the Pennsylvania and 
the Maryland conventions, with the concurrence of White and 
Smith, subsequently voted to restore the Nicene Creed. To the 
Archbishops the book seemed to come very close to a departure 
in essentials from the teaching of the English Church, and they 
felt doubtful as to the wisdom of consecrating American bishops 


until some o the omissions were restored. Nevertheless, they se 
cured the passage of a bill through Parliament permitting the 
consecration, trusting that an accommodation on the disputed 
points would follow. 

At the Convention of 1786 the opponents of Bishop Seabury made 
an effort to secure action that would cast doubt on the validity of The Conven- 

his consecration. The motions for this purpose were made by the *j on 
Rev. Robert Smith of South Carolina and were supported by scabury 
South Carolina, New York, and New Jersey. The first motion 
was to require the clergy present to show their letters o orders or 
tell by whom they were ordained, the object being to challenge 
those ordained by Seabury. Debate on this proposal was shut off 
by a moving of the previous question by William Smith, seconded 
by White, and the motion was defeated. The next motion was 
that the Convention resolve to do nothing that would imply the 
validity of ordinations performed by Dr. Seabury. This was de 
feated in the same manner. White himself, however, proposed a 
resolution, which was unanimously adopted, recommending that 
the states represented should refuse to admit to pastoral charge 
any clergyman professing canonical subjection to a bishop in any 
state or country not represented, and a resolution was also passed 
advising the states not to admit into their jurisdiction anyone who 
should be ordained by a bishop residing in America while the 
application to the English bishops was pending. The reason for 
this apparently contradictory proceeding was that, on the one 
hand, the leaders of the Convention were anxious to avoid any 
declaration against Seabury which would be an obstacle to eventual 
union, while, on the other hand, they were disturbed by the fact 
that Seabury ordained men for states outside of his own without 
reference to the local conventions, and that he apparently required 
from such men a promise of some sort of obedience to him until 
bishops should be obtained for their respective states. They also 
felt that the application to the English bishops might be jeop 
ardized if too definite a recognition were given to Seabury while 
it was pending. 

After thus suspending the Seabury question, and dealing with 
a few minor matters, the Convention adjourned until fall when it Communica- 
reassembled in Wilmington, Delaware, where it received a com- tion f . rom thc 
munication from the Archbishops specifying the conditions of rc 1S ops 


consecration and stating their objections to the Proposed Book and 
the proposed constitution, and a later note saying that the act 
authorizing the consecration had been passed by Parliament. The 
Convention sought to meet the objections of the Archbishops in 
part by voting to retain the Nicene Creed and the "descent into 
hell" in the Apostles', but it persisted in rejecting the Athanasian 
Creed and retaining an article of the constitution subjecting bish 
ops to trial by their diocesan conventions, to which objections had 
also been made. Before adjourning, the deputies signed testi 
monials for Provoost, White, and Griffith, but refused to sign those 
of William Smith because of a charge, brought by the Rev. John 
Andrews, that he had been drunk at the preceding Convention. 
This is the only occasion on which such a charge was ever 
made against Dr. Smith, and were it not for the respectability 
of the witness and the readiness with which his testimony was 
accepted by men who were certainly Smith's friends, we should 
be disposed to reject it. As it is, it seems necessary to conclude that 
there were, at least, good grounds for suspicion. 

Of the three whose testimonials were signed, two, White and 
Consecration Provoost, sailed at once for England and were consecrated the 
nd ensu i n g February, but Griffith, because of the passive resistance 
of the Virginia Standing Committee, prompted, apparently, by 
the Rev. James Madison, was unable to obtain either the necessary 
funds for the voyage, or the calling of a diocesan convention to 
sign his testimonials. Thus, when the new bishops returned to 
America in the spring, there were three bishops in the country 
the number necessary for a consecration but only two of them 
were of the English succession. This situation might, under favor 
able conditions, have promoted the cause of union, but actually it 
proved embarrassing, for it forced to the front the question of 
Seabury's orders. Provoost, to whom the horrid words Tory and 
Nonjuror were enough to invalidate any consecration, would do 
nothing that involved cooperation with his brother bishop in Con 
necticut, and White considered himself under an implied promise 
to the Archbishops not to act with Seabury until there was a 
canonical number of bishops of the English line in America an 
attitude which he may have taken partly to keep Provoost from 
forcing the issue on more fundamental grounds. 

The two years that elapsed between the return of the bishops 


and the assembling of the next Convention were occupied in ef 
forts to unite the two lines and to complete the English succession 
by obtaining the consecration of Griffith. Seabury, now that two 
states had organizations which he could regard as complete, 
showed his desire to promote the cause of union by writing to 
White and Provoost to suggest a conference of the three on ec 
clesiastical affairs. Provoost failed to answer this letter. White 
replied and expressed his desire for unity, but declined to attend 
such a conference, probably because he thought that the fusion 
must be effected by a representative convention, not by the indi 
vidual bishops. 

This cold reception apparently led the Connecticut clergy to fear 
that Seabury's orders would not be recognized by the rest of the 
Church, for they proceeded to elect Abraham Jarvis to go to Scot 
land for consecration in case such recognition should be withheld. 
Jeremiah Learning wrote anxious letters to White, in which he 
suggested that Joseph Priestley, the famous Unitarian scientist, 
and a friend of White's, was plotting to divide the Church in order 
to advance the cause of Unitarianism. White himself apparently 
foresaw that the problem would be fully solved only when the 
English succession was completed, for he bent his chief efforts 
towards obtaining the consecration of Griffith, though without 

When the Convention finally met, on July 28, 1789, the states The Conven- 
had already been brought into a closer political union by the ti p n of 17 . 8 ^ : 
adoption of the Federal Constitution, and that fact may have First Meetm s 
strengthened the cause of union in the Church. At any rate, 
everyone there Bishop Provoost being happily absent was anx 
ious to promote unification, and in order to clear up any "mis 
apprehensions," it was unanimously resolved "that it is the opinion 
of this Convention that the consecration of the Right Rev. Dr. 
Seabury to the episcopal office is valid." On receiving a request 
from Massachusetts that the three bishops should unite in the con 
secration of Edward Bass, bishop-elect of that state a request 
which was designed to bring the two lines together the Conven 
tion, on motion of William Smith, unanimously resolved that a 
complete order of bishops, derived from England and Scotland, 
now existed in the United States, that they were fully competent 
to perform every duty of the episcopal office, and that they were 


requested to unite in the consecration desired. If White and Pro- 
voost felt any delicacy respecting their obligations to the English 
bishops, the Convention undertook to address the latter and seek 
to have the difficulty removed. 

After some further legislation, of which the most important was 
New England the adoption of a constitutional provision that the bishops should 
Convention constitute a separate house as soon as there were three or more in 
union with the Convention, the meeting adjourned to September 
29th, to give time for the communication of its proceedings to be 
presented to Seabury. This was done by White, who also solicited 
Seabury 's attendance at the adjourned Convention and expressed 
his personal conviction of the validity of the latter's orders, and 
his willingness to unite in the proposed consecration if the obliga 
tion which he felt to the English bishops should be removed by 
them. To this Seabury replied at once, saying that he would most 
willingly attend the Convention. When that body reassembled in 
Philadelphia, not only Seabury and the Connecticut delegation, 
but deputies from Massachusetts and New Hampshire were also 
present. After some alterations had been made, they all signed the 
constitution, and White and Seabury separated themselves from 
the rest of the Convention, to become the first House of Bishops, 
making this the first complete General Convention in the sense in 
which that title has ever since been used. Having thus completed 
its organization the Convention proceeded to revise the liturgy on 
somewhat more conservative lines than those of 1785. 

In the union thus effected, some concessions were made to the 
Concessions to Connecticut Churchmen. The Bishops became a separate house, 

Connecticut i i_ i_ r . . . . ,.,. A ,. ..,.,- , 

with the right of initiating legislation as well as revising it (though 
they did not obtain an absolute veto until some time later), and 
some of the omissions of the Proposed Book were restored, includ 
ing the Nicene Creed and the Sign of the Cross in Baptism 
(though with permission to omit it), but the Athanasian Creed 
was still omitted and all of the essential features of the previously 
developed organization were retained, including lay representation 
and the trial of bishops by their own conventions, two provisions 
to which strenuous objections had been made in Connecticut. It 
was provided, however, that a diocese need not send lay delegates 
to General Convention if it preferred not to, and for a time Con 
necticut did not. Seabury felt that the results of the Convention 


were in some measure a defeat for his party. In a letter which 
he wrote to White the following spring he complained that, in 
the matter of the Creeds, there appeared to have been "too great 
an aim at victory" among his opponents at the Convention and 
that he could see no reason for not restoring the Athanasian 
Creed, with a permissive rubric, except "that it would not have 
afforded matter of complete triumph." When, through a misun 
derstanding between the two houses, the "descent into hell" in 
the Apostles' Creed was placed in brackets with a rubric permit 
ting its omission, he felt that this was the last straw, and doubted 
for a time if he could accept the Book. In the end, however, his 
zeal for the welfare of the Church overcame his personal feelings, 
and he did his best, eventually with success, to bring the revised 
Prayer Book into general use in Connecticut. 

Before an answer could be received to letters sent to the Arch 
bishops requesting their approval of the uniting of White and Consecration 
Provoost with Seabury in the performance of episcopal acts, Vir- of James 
ginia, where Griffith's death had vacated the post of bishop-elect, Madison 
chose James Madison, president of the College of William and 
Mary, instead and sent him to England for consecration. Before 
he left he wrote to Seabury concerning the possibility of his being 
consecrated in this country, but the letter was apparently intended 
merely as a polite gesture, for he did not wait to receive an answer 
before sailing. His return solved the difficulties respecting the 
succession, and the four bishops united in consecrating Thomas 
John Claggett to be the first Bishop of Maryland in 1792. Edward 
Bass, Bishop of Massachusetts, was not consecrated until five years 
later, the Massachusetts convention having become somewhat 
lethargic after 1789. 

It had been agreed between White and Seabury at the Conven 
tion of 1789 that the senior bishop present should preside over the 
House of Bishops. At the next Convention, because of the objec 
tions of Provoost and Madison, this rule was modified, and the 
presidency placed in rotation, but in 1795 the rule of seniority was 
restored and continued until the organization of the National 
Council in 1919. As Seabury died in 1796, White presided over 
the Convention of 1798 and every Convention thereafter until his 
death in 1836. 




N CONTRAST to the periods which immediately preceded 

A Quiet a nd followed it, the epoch of our history which extends approxi- 

nterva mately from 1789, when the organization of the Episcopal Church 

was completed, to 1811, when the consecration of Bishops Hobart 
and Griswold may be said to have started the period of rapid 
expansion, is so quiet that at first sight it almost seems that nothing 
was being done. The very brilliance of the succeeding period, 
should, however, serve to warn us against taking such a view. No 
man can build on air, and the great achievements of the later 
leaders would have been impossible had there not been a certain 
amount of quiet repairing of the shattered foundations of the 
Church in the years preceding. 

The period can, perhaps, best be compared to that stage which 
sometimes follows the crisis of a long sickness when the patient is 
no longer in imminent danger but when day follows tedious day 
without any sign of recovery. To the patient and his friends it 
often seems as if he never would recover, but the experienced 
physician assures them that the sick man is "doing as well as can 
be expected," for he knows, in spite of appearances, that the 
patient is gradually regaining his shattered strength. 

So it was with the Church during the period which we are 
discussing. The crisis precipitated by the Revolution had passed 
with the organization of General Convention and the obtaining 
of the episcopate, but the Church was still exhausted and a period 
of quiet recuperation was required. While it seemed on the surface 
that nothing was happening, some old parishes were being re 
opened, those that had kept open were growing stronger, the 
people were getting used to the necessity of self-support, the 
presence of bishops and the functioning of diocesan conventions, 
and new leaders were growing up who were accustomed to the 




Church as it now was, and were accordingly capable of thinking 
in terms of present possibilities rather than of past powers. 

Within eight years after the completion of the English succes 
sion, the episcopate was extended to three states besides the four Extension of 
which had obtained bishops from Great Britain. As we have seen, the E P isc P atc 
Bishop Claggett was consecrated in 1792, and he was followed by 
Robert Smith, Bishop of South Carolina, in 1795, and Edward 
Bass, Bishop of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, in 1797. As Bishop 
White exercised some jurisdiction over New Jersey and Delaware, 
there were ten states with at least a partial claim on the services 
of a bishop. The election of Bishop Smith was the occasion of an 
incident which illustrates the strong jealousy of the episcopate pre- purccli 
vailing in some sections. Shortly before that election took place Incident 
Henry Purcell and two other South Carolinians sent a circular 
letter to the rectors and vestries of the state asserting that they 
were a select committee appointed by seven churches to ask the 
cooperation of the other Episcopalians in the state in sending one 
of their clergy immediately northward to obtain power solely to 
ordain and confirm, but not to have any of the usual attributes of 
episcopal authority, even in the dilute form in which they then 
existed in the country. The reason given for making this move was 
that the House of Deputies had announced in 1792 its intention of 
considering at the next Convention the granting of an absolute 
negative to the House of Bishops, and the signers of the circular 
were confident that the passage of such a measure would lead to 
the secession of Virginia and South Carolina from the General 
Convention. As a result of this circular a convention assembled 
and elected Robert Smith bishop. When, however, Bishop White, 
acting on instructions from the House of Bishops, asked Smith if 
the sentiments expressed in the letter had been approved by the 
state convention, he was told that they had not, and on this 
understanding the consecration was allowed to proceed. 

In the meantime, Purcell had delivered himself of an anonymous 
pamphlet entitled Strictures on the Love of Power in the Prelacy, 
in which, after attacking all bishops generally, he made a par 
ticular attack upon the American bishops, excepting White, and 
especially upon Bishop Seabury, who was supposed to be in favor 
of the veto power. As Purcell represented South Carolina in the 
House of Deputies, the attention of that body was called to this 


pamphlet by the Rev. John Andrews, Vice-provost of the Uni 
versity of Pennsylvania, and it was declared to contain "very offen 
sive and censurable matter." Purcell would, in fact, have been 
expelled from the Convention, had not the Bishops intervened to 
ask for clemency after he had, with many tears, signed a recanta 
tion in the presence of Bishop White and William Smith, presi 
dent of the lower house. After the Convention had adjourned, 
Purcell showed the insincerity of his repentance by sending to Dr. 
Andrews a letter charging him with slandering the author and 
apparently implying that either a threat of violence or a challenge 
to a duel was to be conveyed by the bearer. As a result of this 
Purcell was hailed before the Mayor of Philadelphia and bound 
over to keep the peace. 

Two or three other states made efforts to obtain bishops in 
these early years, but were prevented by various circumstances. 
Other States J n J794 a convention in North Carolina elected the Rev. Charles 
See is ops p ett jg rew bishop, but he was unable to reach the General Con 
vention before its adjournment, and the application for consecra 
tion was not subsequently renewed, though Pettigrew lived until 
1807. It was some years, in fact, before the Church in that state 
actually secured a delegation to General Convention, and much 
longer before it had a bishop. In the year 1795 the Rev. Samuel 
Peters, former missionary at Hebron, Connecticut, applied for 
consecration as Bishop of Vermont, but was refused it on the 
ground that Vermont had not acceded to the Constitution of the 
General Church. There had been only one clergyman in Vermont 
at the time of Peters' election and he had left shortly after. As a 
result of this incident a canon was passed providing that no bishop 
should be consecrated for a state unless there were at least six 
presbyters resident within it. Because of this canon the House of 
Deputies at the next Convention declined to sign the testimonials 
of Uzal Ogden who had been elected Bishop of New Jersey. 
Though more than six clergy had voted in his election, a majority 
of them were held not to be canonically resident, as they were 
only employed on a temporary basis by their vestries, and it is 
possible that a desire to discourage this type of tenure had some 
thing to do with the refusal to confirm the election, though it was 
also charged by his opponents that Ogden was insufficiently at 
tached to the teachings of the Church. 


During the period of organization and afterwards, some efforts 
were made to reunite the Methodists, or followers of John Wesley, 
who were then just beginning to develop as a separate denomina- wst ^ ^ 
tion, with the Episcopal Church, from which most of them had Mctfiodl 
originally come. Shortly after the close of the Revolution, when a 
serious want of ministers was felt in this country, Wesley ap 
pointed the Rev. Thomas Coke, a presbyter of the Church of 
England, to act as "superintendent" of the Methodists here, with 
power to ordain ministers. Coke was to "lay hands" upon the 
Rev. Francis Asbury, the actual leader of the American Meth 
odists, who then received a similar authority. In 1784, not long 
after this event, Coke and Asbury were interviewed by two Epis 
copalian clergymen, the Rev. John Andrews and the Rev. William 
West, who urged them not to separate from the Episcopal Church, 
and suggested that when a regular succession had been obtained 
special bishops might be consecrated for the Methodists. Both of 
the superintendents rejected this proposal and when Andrews 
again urged it in a private interview with Coke, the latter replied 
that as the "new system" was now in successful operation he saw 
no advantage for the Methodists in obtaining a more traditional 

When William White went to England to obtain consecration in 
1787, he sought an interview with John Wesley on the position of 
the American Methodists, but, though he had a letter of introduc 
tion from the Rev. Joseph Pilmore, one of Wesley's followers who 
remained in the Episcopal Church, he received so cool a reply to 
his request that he did not renew it. He did, however, have an 
interview with Charles Wesley, who expressed disapproval of the 

In 1791, an overture was made from the other side, for Thomas 
Coke, who had so definitely rejected the proposals of Andrews Coke's 
and West in 1784, had suffered a change of heart as the result of Proposal 
subsequent developments. As he had been the first of the super 
intendents to be named by Wesley, he had expected to become the 
principal leader of the Methodist Church, but the prestige already 
acquired by Asbury, his tremendous energy and unflagging devo 
tion to his work, and his superior administrative ability made him 
the dominant member of the partnership and in time not only was 
Coke largely eclipsed but even the influence of John Wesley was 




considerably weakened. Under these circumstances Coke sought to 
strengthen his position by forming an alliance with the Episcopal 
Church, and he wrote to White and Seabury suggesting an ar 
rangement not unlike that which he had rejected earlier. As the 
chief obstacle to reunion, he thought, would be the unwillingness 
of the present ordained ministers to give up the right of admin 
istering the sacraments, though they might submit to being reor- 
dained, and the reluctance of the lay preachers, whose literary 
qualifications were limited, to let their future ordination depend 
upon the present bishops of the Episcopal Church, he hinted to 
White and definitely suggested to Seabury that he and Asbury 
should both be consecrated bishops, though he did not undertake 
to state exactly what relationship they should then have to the 
Episcopal Church. 

Seabury returned no answer to the letter sent to him, but White 
sent a non-committal reply, which was the only thing he thought 
proper since he personally had no authority to act in the matter. 
Had the proposal been more cordially received it might, perhaps, 
have resulted in bringing a few Methodists into the Episcopal 
Church, but it is hardly possible that it could have effected a 
general union, for Asbury, whose influence was by then all- 
powerful, would certainly have opposed it. Moreover, a condition 
which Coke himself regarded as essential to the plan, the coopera 
tion of Wesley, was rendered impossible by that gentleman's death, 
news of which reached this country between the sending of Coke's 
letter and his receipt of White's answer. Coke subsequently had 
one or two interviews with White, but nothing of importance 
transpired during them and he presently returned to England, 
having despaired of regaining his influence among the American 

The issue of this and the previous attempts at union convinced 
most of those who were acquainted with the situation that the 
object, however desirable, was impossible of attainment. At the 
General Convention of 1792, however, Bishop Madison of Vir 
ginia was still anxious to promote the cause, if possible, and he 
persuaded his fellow bishops to propose to the lower house a joint 
declaration that the Episcopal Church was willing to modify such 
features of her system as she considered properly subject to human 
alteration if by so doing she could effect a union with any other 


Christian denomination. It was also proposed chat the state con 
ventions should be advised to enter into such conferences with 
other religious groups as they thought desirable, and report the 
results to the next General Convention. This resolution was 
strongly opposed by a majority of the House of Deputies, however, 
and in order to avoid an open breach between the two houses the 
Bishops were given leave to withdraw it, which they did. 

In 1797 overtures for union were made by the Lutheran Con 
sistory in the state of New York to the Episcopal diocese of that Overtures 
state, and a committee was appointed by the diocesan convention & or ? the 
to confer on the subject and to bring the matter before the next ut enms 
General Convention if necessary, but nothing came of it. The 
meeting of General Convention was postponed until 1799 because 
of an epidemic of yellow fever in 1798 when it should have met, 
and the state convention did not meet again until 1801, when it 
was preoccupied with the resignation of Bishop Provoost, and in 
the general uncertainty, the opportunity for union with the Luth 
erans was lost sight of. 

The bishops of the first generation in the American Episcopal 
Church (those who were consecrated during the period of organi- The Early 
zation or shortly after), are generally supposed to have been highly Bishops 
inactive, and this view is, on the whole, correct. It is not correct, 
however, to assume that the inactivity was necessarily due to lazi 
ness or indifference on the part of the bishops. In some cases it 
may have been, but in others it certainly was not, and there were 
other reasons why the early bishops should have preferred not to 
be too vigorous in the exercise of their office. We have just seen, 
in the Purcell incident, with how much suspicion episcopacy was 
regarded in South Carolina. Other states were not quite so extreme 
in their views, but there was probably none, outside of Connecti 
cut, where the office was not looked upon with a certain amount 
of distrust by most professed Episcopalians. Bishops were a novelty 
in this country, and it was also, so far as the experience of English 
men and Americans went, a novelty to have them entirely deprived 
of temporal power. As experiments always make people uneasy, 
the feeling was everywhere latent that if a careful watch were not 
kept on the bishops, they might acquire an amount of power 
which would seriously curtail the liberties of the lower orders of 
clergy and the laity. 


For this reason the office was at first surrounded with a good 
Distrust of the many restrictions, some of which still remain. The Maryland con- 
Episcopate vention of 1734 had declared, "According to what we conceive to 
be of true Apostolic Institution, the duty and office of a bishop 
differs in nothing from that of other priests, except in the power 
of ordination and confirmation, and the right of presidency in 
ecclesiastical meetings or synods," and this principle governed the 
provisions made for the episcopate in nearly all of the states. Some, 
indeed, denied the bishop even the right of presidency in their 
conventions, giving him only an ex officio seat, though the obvious 
inconvenience of such an arrangement led to its early abandon 
ment. All of the states subjected their bishops to trial by their 
own conventions, though most of them required that a member 
of the episcopal order should preside at such trials and pronounce 
the sentence. Some did not, however, require the presence of a 
bishop for the trial and sentencing of members of the lower orders. 
In the few matters in which he was allowed to exercise jurisdic 
tion, moreover, such as the approval of candidates for ordination, 
the bishop was generally required to act only with the concurrence 
of the diocesan convention or of its permanent representative, the 
Standing Committee. This latter institution, which is peculiar to 
our branch of the Church, had its origin in the need of providing 
some interim authority for the convention before bishops had been 
obtained, and its continuance thereafter, though it has persisted 
down to the present day, is explicable only by the desire which 
was felt to place a curb upon the episcopal authority. 

Under these circumstances, it is easy to see why the bishops 
Moderation should have been very cautious in asserting their authority. They 
Necessary h ac [ ] Deen c h osm to do the two things for which their office, ac 
cording to the usage of the Church, was absolutely essential: to 
ordain and to confirm. Little else was allowed them. Indeed, they 
found it inexpedient even to visit parishes for Confirmation unless 
they were definitely invited. All of the various administrative func 
tions which make the work of a bishop so important to the proper 
functioning of a diocese today were denied them. There were, as 
yet, no diocesan missions, or other institutions, no diocesan funds, 
and no diocesan organizations or diocesan branches of national 
organizations. The power of settling disputes between parishes 
and their rectors had not yet been granted to the bishops, nor had 


they been given the right to be consulted in the appointment of 
a rector. All of the less tangible influence which comes to a bishop 
from the prestige of his office had also to be slowly developed. 
For the present, the vital thing was that nothing should happen 
which would frighten or disgust the people with the episcopate, 
and in this negative respect, at least, the conduct of the early bish 
ops was unexceptionable. They claimed no authority which was 
not given them, and by their moderation and restraint they even 
tually obtained privileges which undoubtedly would have been 
denied them had they been requested, so that the next generation 
of bishops was able to take over an office which had come to be 
trusted and respected, and to develop possibilities in it which 
would have shocked the people of an earlier time. 

Connecticut represented a partial exception to this situation, 
and there Seabury, and his successor, Abraham Jarvis, were able Work of 
to exercise a jurisdiction somewhat resembling that of later bishops, Seabury and 
though backed by far fewer resources. Elsewhere, most of die * ams 
bishops seem to have done what they could, or at least what 
was expected of them, but we must make some exceptions even 
to this limited commendation. Bishop Madison, after some earnest 
efforts at reviving the Church in Virginia, gave up in despair, and 
became entirely absorbed in his duties as president of the College 
of William and Mary. According to an early historian of the dio 
cese of South Carolina, Bishop Smith did not perform any con 
firmations, but this may have been the result of the jealousy of his 
office prevailing in that state and not to indifference on his part. 
He probably performed some ordinations. In Maryland, Bishop 
Claggett carried on his work fairly regularly, except when he 
was incapacitated with the gout, and the condition of his diocese 
was generally pretty good. 

In Massachusetts, Bishop Bass performed a number of ordina 
tions and some confirmations. As there were but few active par 
ishes left in the state, his duties cannot have been great, however. 
He was also Bishop of Rhode Island, but it does not appear that 
he did much work there. He died in 1804, and Samuel Parker, 
who was the real leader of the Church in Massachusetts, succeeded 
him, but died within less than a year after his consecration. There 
after, the state, like all the rest of New England except Connecti 
cut, was without a bishop until the organization of the Eastern 




Bishop White 
in Pcnnsyl- 


Diocese in 1811. There must have been some growth in the mean 
time, however. Bishop Griswold, at a later date, estimated the 
number of clergy in the four states comprising the Eastern Diocese 
to have been about fifteen at the time of its organization, and 
most of these were in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. 

Bishop Provoost of New York made regular visitations for Con- 
firmation and the consecration of churches in the district around 

NCW Y rk City and n L ng Island ' which were the onl y P arts 
f f hc state where the Church was then active, except at Albany. 

He also performed a respectable number of ordinations. In 1801 
he resigned his jurisdiction, because of ill health, and went to live 
on his farm in the Bowery. He was succeeded by Benjamin Moore, 
who, as we have seen, had been the Tory choice for rector of Trin 
ity after the Revolution, and who had served as assistant there 
after his demotion. Under Moore, the Church expanded along 
the Hudson between Westchester and Albany, and a start was 
made on missionary work in the western part of the state, which 
was beginning to be filled up with settlers from New England. In 
1811 Moore was stricken with paralysis, which incapacitated him 
for active work, and John Henry Hobart was chosen as his assist 
ant Because of the spectacular growth of the Episcopal Church in 
New York during Hobart's episcopate, it has been customary to 
represent the preceding period as one of deadness, but actually 
the revival of the Church began under Bishop Provoost, and its 
growth was continuous throughout the episcopate of Bishop Moore. 
During the latter part of this period, however, the energetic influ 
ence of Hobart was already being felt in the diocese, for he had 
become an assistant at Trinity in 1800, and he took an important 
place in the affairs of the diocese from the start. He published some 
devotional manuals calculated to raise the standards of personal 
religion within the state, he engaged in a pamphlet controversy 
with the Presbyterians which will be noticed later, and, with the 
cooperation and advice of Bishop Moore, he organized a number 
of societies designed to stimulate the laity to greater efforts in 
supporting missionary work, promoting theological education, and 
distributing Bibles and Prayer Books. 

Bishop White was the only one of the early bishops to live very 
f ar i n to the later period, and his career illustrates the fact that the 
greater activity of the later bishops was due at least as much to a 

Courtesy, Bishop White Prayer Book Society 


Cintrtesy, The Reliijhiis Motion Picture Foundation 
From a portrait by Gilbert Stuart. 


change in circumstances as to a change in personalities, for he 
performed much more extensive visitations in his later years than 
he did at the beginning of his episcopate. The regular reports of 
his activities to the diocesan convention do not begin, or, at least, 
were not printed, until 1811. Before this he apparently visited any 
towns which asked him to come, but he would not have covered a 
large area in doing so, for the Church was pretty well restricted to 
the southeastern part of the state. He probably also made some 
visitations in southern New Jersey and Delaware. In 1811 he re 
ported that parochial duties had prevented his visiting other 
parishes, but thereafter he made regular visitations. In 1813 he 
visited York and Lancaster, as well as some towns farther east. In 
1814 he reported the confirmation of 465 persons, a record for 
these early years, but 275 of these were in Philadelphia, and the 
rest in towns of Pennsylvania and New Jersey not far from Phila 
delphia. For some years Lancaster county represented the west 
ern limit of his activities, for York was not revisited until 1822. 
In 1824 he got as far north as Wilkes Barre, and the next year he 
projected a visit to Pittsburgh and the other missions that had 
grown up beyond the Alleghenies. This purpose was defeated by 
an accident in which he suffered a fractured wrist, but before that His 
happened he had already reached Lewistown, near the center of Western Tour 
the state. In 1826 he succeeded in completing his western tour. He 
visited Pittsburgh and some other towns near the western border 
of the state and went on to Wheeling, Virginia, which Bishop 
Moore, of that state, had asked him to visit. The total distance 
covered in this trip was 830 miles and the number confirmed 503, 
a respectable achievement for a man of seventy-three at a time 
when the horse was the fastest means of locomotion, and when 
conditions in a large part of the state were still primitive. In 1827 
White made a tour of 400 miles in the northeastern part of 
the state. In that year he was given an assistant, Henry Ustick 
Onderdonk, who had no parochial connection, and thereafter 
White left the care of the remoter parts of the state to him. 

White, like all of the early bishops, except Madison, who was a 
college president, was the rector of a large parish as well as head 
of the diocese, for he retained his position at Christ Church 
until his death. Besides his diocesan and parochial activities, he 
also took an important part in the civic affairs of Philadelphia, 


His Civk being a founder and leader of a number of charitable and religiou; 

Leadership organizations, including the Philadelphia Bible Society, the firs; 
such society in the country. These activities probably benefited th< 
Church indirectly by enhancing its prestige. He also cooperatec 
with some of the clergy of his diocese in 1812 in organizing the 
Society for the Advancement of Christianity in Pennsylvania. Th< 
chief function of this society was the support of missionaries in the 
remoter parts of the state, and its principal leader was Jackson 
Kemper, later first Missionary Bishop of the Northwest, but then 
and for many years, assistant at Christ Church. He was also the 
companion of White on his western tour in 1826. 




JL HE MOST convenient date to mark the beginning of the 
period of active expansion in the history of the Episcopal Church, 
that is, the period during which it began to pass the limits of its 
colonial activity and enter new territory, is 1811, for that date saw 
the consecration of the two bishops who were to be the first and 
probably the most important leaders of the new epoch, John Henry 
Hobart of New York, and Alexander Viets Griswold of the East 
ern Diocese. It must be borne in mind, however, that the division 
thus fixed is, like all historical divisions, an indefinite one. As we 
have seen, some beginning of expansion was made, at least in New 
York, before this date, and in many other places the movement 
cannot be said to have begun until somewhat later. In the older 
states of the South, moreover, the period should probably be de 
scribed as one of active revival rather than expansion, for, inas 
much as the Church never did recover the predominance in those 
states which it had enjoyed in colonial times, it is not altogether 
accurate to speak of it as expanding there. 

The selection of the Hobart-Griswold consecration as the start 
ing point of the period has a further advantage in that the two 
subjects of the consecration were outstanding representatives of the 
two types of Churchmanship which were to dominate the era: 
High Churchmanship and Evangelicalism. Of the former Hobart 
was not only the outstanding leader, but to some extent the re- 
molder also, for he infused the movement with the ardor of his 
own spirit, giving it a warmth and vitality which it had not pos 
sessed since the days of its great seventeenth-century leaders, and 
he also injected into it a note of personal piety which may in some 
measure have been borrowed from its rivals. Hobart was the out 
standing opponent of the Evangelicals, but it is a rare contro 
versialist who is not influenced to some extent by the other side, 


of Hobart and 



and Hobart's watchword of "Evangelical truth and Apostolic 
order" would at least suggest the possibility that such an influence 
existed. At any rate, so great was Hobart's influence upon his fel 
low High Churchmen that the theological position which the) 
held was known for some time, in this country, as a Hoban 

Griswold was much less of a party leader than Hobart, and. 
Gmwold indeed, he disliked to think of himself as a party man at all, but 
Evangelicals nevertheless it was generally recognized by his contemporaries 
that he could be counted upon to act with the Evangelical party, 
or, at least, with its more conservative and churchly section, and 
under his leadership the Eastern Diocese acquired a moderately 
Evangelical character. This party, which was to exercise a great 
influence upon the revival and expansion of the Episcopal Church, 
had its origin, like Methodism, in the preaching and teaching of 
John and Charles Wesley and their followers. The Wesleys were 
both of them clergymen of the Church of England, and they 
both remained within it, at least officially, all their days. Charles 
Wesley, indeed, was strongly attached to the Church. John, who 
was the principal leader of the movement, was less so, but he was 
opposed for various reasons to any separation of the English Meth 
odists from the Established Church. He was, however, convinced 
of the principle that presbyters had as good a claim to the power 
of ordination as bishops, and after the Revolution he put this 
theory into practice, as we have seen, by ordaining superintendents 
(later called bishops), for the Methodists in this country. This 
move caused, or rather, completed the separation of the American 
Methodists from the Episcopal Church, and eventually a separa 
tion took place in England also. 

The more conservative members of the movement, however, 
remained within the Church of England and the Episcopal Church 
in this country. Even a few of those whose names are associated 
more or less prominently with the founding of American Meth 
odism refused to join the separation, and continued all their lives 
within the Episcopal Church. Joseph Pilmore, who had come to 
this country as a lay preacher among the Methodists, was one of 
the first candidates ordained by Bishop Seabury, and became rector 
of St. Paul's Church, Philadelphia. Another clergyman who had 
been associated with the Methodists in his early years was the Rev. 


Devereux Jarratt, who served the Church for many years in his 
native state of Virginia. He had been ordained in colonial times 
by the Bishops of London and Chester. 

Most of the later Evangelicals, however, had had no direct con 
tact with the Methodists, but were followers of the more con- Evangelical 
scrvative phase of the movement. Theologically, they agreed with Methods* *" 
all of the leading denominations of Protestants in teaching that 
men were saved only by an active, personal faith in Christ, and 
that good actions were of no account except as they furnished 
evidence of such a faith. They agreed with the Calvinists in stress 
ing the necessity of conversion, by which they meant conscious 
acceptance of and submission to Christ, but they disagreed with 
them by rejecting the doctrine of predestination. 

These two last points, taken together., resulted in those peculiari 
ties of method which, much more than any technicalities of theol 
ogy, gave to the Evangelicals their distinctive character. Since 
conversion was necessary, and since, while it was certainly de 
pendent on and primarily the result of divine grace, it was not 
absolutely predetermined, but could be obtained by all who freely 
and earnestly sought it, it followed that it was the duty of the 
pastor to do everything in his power to make people seek it and to 
bring them to the state of mind in which they would be most 
likely to receive it. The Wesleys had found that the most effective 
means to this end was preaching of an emotional sort, supple 
mented by classes for religious instruction, usually in the Bible, 
by evening "lectures," which were simply a specialized form of 
sermon, and by "prayer meetings," or informal assemblies at 
which not only the minister, but such of the people as felt moved 
to do so, engaged in extemporaneous prayer. The Evangelicals 
took over these devices, and superimposed them upon the regular 
devotional system of the Church as represented in the Prayer 
Book. They adhered strictly to that book in their regular Sunday 
services, except that they claimed the right to add an extem 
poraneous prayer before or after the sermon, but the most vital 
part of their devotional life was expressed in the informal exercises 
already mentioned, and in their sermons. Some of their special 
meetings were held on Sunday evenings, after the regular services 
for the day were over, but most of them had to be held on week 
days, and it was the boast of the more advanced Evangelicals 



Towards the 


that they had some sort of religious exercise in their churche 
nearly every night. 

A conversion theology necessarily stresses the internal and pei 
sonal aspects of religious life, rather than the institutional an 
external It was inevitable, therefore, that the sacraments an 
orders of the Church should not fill a very important place in th 
Evangelical scheme of things. They objected to the phrase "bap 
tismal regeneration," which was frequently used by the Hig! 
Churchmen, because they held that a man could be regeneratei 
only by a personal conversion, and they generally insisted tha 
Confirmation should be postponed until after the individual ha< 
been converted. The Eucharist they regarded chiefly as a servic 
of commemoration, valuable to the devout, but not a regula 
means of transmitting supernatural grace. Towards the ministr 
they took the traditional attitude of Low Churchmen, holding 
episcopacy to be of Apostolic origin, and consequently preferabl 
to any other form of ecclesiastical organization, but not absolutel 1 
essential to a valid ministry. In their preaching they sought t< 
stress the fundamental truths of the Gospel, as they understooc 
them, rather than the distinctive claims and doctrines of th< 
Church. Because of this emphasis on "Gospel preaching," the^ 
got into the habit of referring to themselves as "evangelical men, 1 
and it was from this phrase that their party name was derived 

Any vital religious movement tends to develop a strong mis 
sionary spirit, and this was conspicuously true of the Evangelicals 
They were notably active in the organization of the Church' 
missionary work, both along diocesan and national lines, and the] 
supplied a large proportion of the recruits for service in the variou 
missionary fields. The theological seminary in Virginia, which wa; 
under their control, displayed from the start a strong missionary 
zeal which has characterized it down to the present day. The^ 
also showed their religious spirit in the field of social service b] 
organizing charitable enterprises of all sorts, and by supporting 
most of the conspicuous social reforms of the day. 

In their moral standards the Evangelicals tended to resembl< 
the Puritans, condemning all forms of self-indulgence and looking 
with disapproval upon all of the lighter social amusements, sucl 
as dancing, card-playing, and theater-going. They also shared th< 
Puritan consciousness of the supernatural in everyday life, oftei 


seeing the direct operation of the Divine Hand in events which 
would generally be regarded as fortuitous. Their conversion was 
naturally looked upon as a definitely supernatural visitation, and 
thereafter every misfortune was regarded as a specific arrangement 
of God for their discipline and every fortunate circumstance as a 
sign of His special favor. Something of this consciousness is, no 
doubt, the heritage of every Christian, but with the Evangelicals it 
was stronger and more vivid than is usually the case. 

The High Churchman was not less conscious of the Divine 
Presence than the Evangelical, but he was more inclined to High 
regard it as being expressed according to regular laws. Even its Churchman- 
supernatural manifestations, he thought, had been regularized in 
the sacraments and other institutions of the Church. He did not, 
if he was a Hobart High Churchman, at least, underestimate the 
importance of personal devotion, but neither did he believe in the 
necessity of a definite conversion experience, and he did believe 
that only those whose spiritual development took place within the 
Church, and through the use of her sacraments, could regard 
themselves as walking in the "covenanted" way of salvation. He 
maintained that Christ had founded a definite institution, the 
Church, to carry on His work, that He had supplied it with a 
definite, threefold ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons, and 
that only to those who submitted to the Church thus constituted 
and accepted its ministrations was salvation definitely promised. 
He would not say that God, in His mercy, might not save others 
also, but no others could claim the benefit of any promises. 

For this reason the High Churchman thought it his duty, while 
not neglecting the fundamental teachings of the Gospel, to lay a 
good deal of emphasis upon the exclusive claim of the Church 
to be the institution through which the Gospel promises would 
be realized. Hence that phrase of Hobart's about "Evangelical 
truth and Apostolic order," and hence also a remark he used to 
make in defense of his support of societies for distributing the 
Bible and Prayer Book together, rather than the Bible alone, that 
in so doing the Church was distributed together with the Scrip 
tures. In other words, he believed that the Gospel could not be 
properly proclaimed except by the institution to which he held 
that it had originally been intrusted by Our Lord. 

The differences between the two parties were carried out into 

The Church 

.me! S<Kiety: 
Hi>ih Church 




a number of matters of detail and even affected to some extent 
their relations with civil society. After the Revolution the High 
Churchmen tended to favor making the separation of Church and 
State as complete as possible. They refused, if they were clergymen, 
to appear at any gathering of a political character, or to take part 
in organizations or enterprises that might have even remotely a 
political bearing, and some of them went to the length of re 
fusing to vote. This was the direct opposite of the position taken 
by the party in England, but the reversal was an understandable 
one. Where the Church was supported by the State it was natural 
for those who took the highest view of the claims of the Church 
to favor such a relationship more vigorously than others. Where 
the Church was completely separated from the State and there 
was no prospect of obtaining State support, it was as natural for 
the same party to try to emphasize its dignity and independence 
by carrying the separation as far as possible. This aloofness like 
wise made High Church clergymen unwilling to join the Masons, 
though not opposed to Masonry as such. 

Prominent Evangelicals, on the other hand, were very likely to 
belong to that organization and, while they did not as a rule par 
ticipate actively in politics, were much more ready than the High 
Churchman to take part in civic enterprises and to give their 
support to quasi-political reform movements, such as the temper 
ance movement and Abolition, though the support of the latter 
was, of course, confined to the northern wing of the party. 

As they represented the more Protestant tradition of the 
Church, the Evangelicals felt a greater kinship with Protestants 
of other denominations than did the High Churchmen, who 
were fond of representing the Church as standing midway be 
tween Protestant errors and Roman corruptions. The Evangelicals, 
therefore, generally participated in the inter-denominational Bible 
societies, Tract societies, and Sunday school unions which were 
a prominent feature of the religious life of the time, whereas the 
High Churchmen preferred to form similar organizations com 
posed exclusively of Episcopalians. The more extreme among the 
Evangelicals also liked to unite with the members of other denomi 
nations in their services, and resented the canons and rubrics 
which hindered them from doing so. It was also characteristic of 
this party that its members tended to unite in voluntary clerical 


associations, sometimes called "convocations." In a diocese where 
the Evangelicals were predominant, these associations would in 
clude nearly all of the clergy, and they would sometimes meet at 
strategic points for the holding of protracted revivals. High 
Churchmen, probably because they feared the tendencies of the 
associations, were opposed to any clerical organizations of an 
unofficial character. 

Between the extremes of these parties there were many grada 
tions, and there were many devout Episcopalians of the middle 
ground who could not be identified with any party. Moreover, 
the differences between them, in spite of their numerous ramifi 
cations, were not, after all, so very fundamental, and until the 
situation was complicated by the Oxford Movement, their disputes 
were not generally so bitter as to hamper seriously the efficiency 
of the Church. Nevertheless, their presence must have been felt 
in some measure by any Episcopalian of the period who took 
much interest in the affairs of his Church, and they exerted some 
influence on most of the major events of the time. 

Of the two men who were consecrated bishops in 1811, Hobart, 
as we have seen, was the outstanding leader of the High Church character of 
party. Though he was younger than Griswold, both in age and Hobart 
in ministerial service, he was already better known to the Church 
at large. Born in Philadelphia in the first year of the Revolution, 
he had grown up under the spiritual care of Bishop White, and 
was always regarded by White with something of the affection of 
a father for a favorite son. He was educated at the College of 
Philadelphia and at the College of New Jersey, now Princeton, 
graduating from the latter institution in 1793. He studied theology 
under Bishop White, but he was of too ardent a temper to be 
satisfied with White's moderate Churchmanship, and as a result 
of his own reflection and study, and possibly also of the influence 
of his father-in-law, Thomas Bradbury Chandler, he early became 
a pronounced High Churchman. He possessed a tremendous 
capacity for friendship and the ability to yield a whole-hearted 
devotion to any cause that he might espouse. He gave himself 
unstintedly to the Church and, as his constitution was not as vig 
orous as it might have been, he probably brought himself to an 
early grave by his exertions in her behalf. At the same time, 
Hobart possessed the faults which are usually associated with 


warm tempers. He was sensitive and impulsive, and intolerant 
of all opposition to his policies. He sometimes allowed himself to 
be drawn into prolonged controversies over trivial points, and he 
was seldom able to keep a note of personal resentment from 
creeping into his controversial writings. On the other hand, his 
hostility was generally short-lived, and when he quarreled with 
his friends the dispute was likely to end in a frank confession of 
error on his part. 

Hobart was ordained deacon by Bishop White in 1798, and 
His Early after serving his diaconate at various stations in Pennsylvania and 
Career New Jersey and on Long Island, he was called as assistant min 

ister at Trinity Church, New York City, in 1800 and ordained 
to the priesthood by Bishop Provoost shortly afterwards. He 
began almost at once to rise into prominence in the diocese and 
in the general Church. He was elected secretary of the diocesan 
convention in 1801 and sent as delegate to the General Conven 
tion in 1804. The latter year also saw the appearance of two books 
bearing his name: A Companion to the Altar and A Companion 
of the Festivals and Fasts. The former was a series of exercises 
and instructions for use preparatory to Communion and during 
it, and the latter was a series of meditations and instructions for 
use in connection with the holy days for which Collects, Gospels, 
and Epistles were provided in the Prayer Book. Both works were 
frankly based upon some older English manuals of devotion, but 
Hobart modified much and added much, and infused the whole 
with his own warmth of spirit and vigorous piety. To some of 
the older High Churchmen, it seemed that they were a little 
tainted with "enthusiasm," and they probably brought entirely 
new standards of personal devotion to many members of the 
Church. A Companion to the Altar remained for many years the 
standard, if not the only Eucharistic, manual among American 

To A Companion of the Festivals and Fasts Hobart prefaced 
some "Preliminary Instructions Concerning the Church" in 
which he advanced the usual thesis of his party that the Church 
was a divinely formed society whose officers (bishops, priests, and 
deacons) had their commission from Christ through the Aposdes, 
and that all men were morally obliged to belong to this society. 
In conclusion he said, "The obligation of communion with the 


Church is founded on its being a society established by God to 
which He has annexed all the privileges and blessings of the 
Gospel Covenant. . . . Though we presume to judge no man, 
leaving all judgment to that Being who is alone qualified to 
make allowance for the ignorance, invincible prejudices, imper 
fect reasonings, and mistaken judgments of His frail creatures, 
yet it must not from hence be concluded that it is a matter of 
indifference whether Christians communicate with the Church 
or not, or that there is doubt upon the subject of schism, whether 
it be a sin or not." 

Naturally, this strong statement of the claims of a Church 
which included but a small fraction of the total number of Controversy 
American Christians produced resentment among outsiders, and p ith K the . 
it was presently attacked by the Rev. Dr. Linn, a Presbyterian re5 ytcnans 
clergyman who had undertaken to furnish some papers upon 
religious subjects for the Albany Centind. His strictures were 
replied to by an Episcopalian layman, Thomas Yardley How, a 
close personal friend of Hobart's, and a controversy was precipi 
tated which was soon joined by Hobart himself, by Frederick 
Beasley, the rector of St. Peter's Church, Albany, and by Bishop 
Moore of New York, all writing, as was the custom of the time, 
under various pseudonyms, such as "Layman," "Cyprian," "De 
tector," and "Vindex," while Dr. Linn continued to support the 
Presbyterian side, signing himself variously as "The Miscellanist," 
"Umpire/ 5 "Inquirer," and "Clemens." Eventually even Bishop 
White was drawn into the controversy, for an allusion of Linn 
to his Case of the Episcopal Churches caused him to write a let 
ter explaining the special circumstances under which this pamphlet 
was written, though not retracting its basic position. 

After the newspaper controversy had subsided, Hobart, in 1806, 
published the various letters under the title of A Collection of Dr. Mason 
Essays on the Subject of Episcopacy. This had the effect of reviv 
ing the dispute, for the Essays were very ably but severely re 
viewed in the Christian Magazine by its editor, the Rev. John 
M. Mason, one of the outstanding Presbyterian ministers of the 
day, and Hobart replied in another series of letters, which he 
published as An Apology for Apostolic Order and Its Advocates. 
This was in turn reviewed by Dr. Mason, and the controversy 
was then closed. In this later phase of the debate it would seem 


Difficulty of 
Bishops for 

Cave Jones 

that the Presbyterians had rather the advantage, for Dr. Mason 
was both more learned and more logical than his younger oppo 
nent. The importance of such controversies, however, has little 
to do with the question of which side gains the dialectical vic 
tory. Their value, if they have any, lies in the fact that they draw 
attention to the claims of the less known party, and in this par 
ticular instance the very desultoriness of Hobart's reasoning may 
have been an asset, for it caused him to drag in the doctrine of 
predestination, the rejection of which by most Episcopalians gave 
the Church its strongest appeal to the many who at this period 
were finding the tenets of orthodox Calvinism too severe. 

When the time came for the consecration of Hobart and Gris- 
wold to the episcopate, some difficulty was experienced in obtain 
ing the number of bishops necessary to perform the rite. Bishop 
Moore, whose paralysis was the occasion for Hobart's election, 
was confined to his room, and Bishop Madison was unwilling 
to leave the College of William and Mary. Bishop Claggett, who 
was just recovering from an attack of the gout, tried to come to 
the General Convention, which met at New Haven, but suffered 
a relapse and was unable to do so. Bishops White -and Jarvis 
were, therefore, the only members of their order at the Conven 
tion. Bishop Provoost was still alive, but, besides having retired, 
he was partially paralyzed and was just recovering from an attack 
of jaundice, so that he was unwilling to go as far as New Haven. 
He did, however, finally consent to assist at the consecration if it 
were held in New York, and so the two bishops and the two 
candidates went there for the ceremony, which was performed in 
Trinity Church on May 29, 1811. 

Hobart had been elected assistant-bishop of New York by a 
large majority of the diocesan convention, but the choice was 
not quite unanimous, and after the election had occurred, his 
opponents made a futile attempt to prevent his consecration. 
The dispute was a personal rather than a party one, for the par 
ticipants were all of them men who had, or thought they had, been 
slighted by Hobart, or who were in a position which caused them 
to feel more or less embarrassed by his advancement. The leader 
of the attack was the Rev. Cave Jones, one of Hobart's fellow 
assistants at Trinity Church. Between the election and the conse 
cration, Jones published a Solemn Appeal to the Church, in which 


he set forth a long list of grievances against Hohart which, he 
thought, made that person unworthy of being elevated to the 
episcopate. Most of the injuries were purely imaginary, and the 
rest were trivial instances of the effect of Hobart's impulsiveness 
upon a proud and sensitive nature, 

The pamphlet had no effect upon the consecration, hut the 
controversy was continued afterwards, Jones being supported by Supporters o 
Richard Channing Moore, the rector of St. Stephen's Church, J nes 
New York, and Henry I. Feltus, rector oE St. Ann's, Brooklyn, 
two Evangelical clergymen of whom Hobart had once or twice 
spoken severely; by Abraham Beach, who was then the senior 
assistant at Trinity; and by a number of the laity under the lead 
ership of John Jay and his family. Beach had no especial grievance 
against Hobart, but he felt some embarrassment at having a sub 
ordinate in the parish made bishop. The vestry of Trinity Church 
supported Hobart, and when Jones refused to resign, they ap 
pealed to Bishop Moore, under a canon passed by General Con 
vention in 1804, to sever the pastoral relationship. When Moore 
did this, the Jones faction, possibly through the influence of Jay, 
persuaded Bishop Provoost to write to the diocesan convention 
to the effect that he had decided his resignation was invalid, and 
would, therefore, expect to be consulted on diocesan affairs, though 
he could do no active work. The Convention, however, refused 
to restore his jurisdiction, and the dispute between Jones and 
Trinity was eventually referred to five judges of the state supreme 
court who ruled that Jones must accept the separation, but 
granted him a money compensation. After his withdrawal the 
dispute subsided rapidly. Dr. Beach was retired on a pension and 
Dr. Moore was presently elected Bishop of Virginia, and de 
parted from New York. Hobart preached his consecration sermon 
and declared himself satisfied with Moore's declaration of his 
intention to adhere to the doctrines and discipline of the Church, 
though, as he had apparently never done anything else, it is diffi 
cult to see why the matter had to be emphasized. Feltus soon 
fell under the spell of Hobart's personality and became one of 
his most ardent followers. 

After his consecration Hobart continued his efforts to set forth 
the principles of the Church as he understood them, adopting 
for this purpose the English custom of delivering occasional 




Letters' 1 


"charges'* to the clergy ami laity of the diocese. The titles of some 
of these are, in themselves, an indication of his ecclesiastical posi 
tion. In 1818 he delivered one on The Corruptions of the Church 
of Rome Contrasted with Certain Protestant Errors, and he fol 
lowed this the next year with one entitled The Churchman: The 
Principles of the Churchman Stated and Explained in Distinction 
from the Corruptions of the Church of Rome and the Errors of 
Certain Protestant Sects. In 1826 he delivered one called The High 
Churchman Vindicated, and in 1829 he published one on The 
Duty of the Clergy with Respect to Inculcating the Doctrine of 
the Trinity. He also published a number of "pastoral letters," 
which generally dealt with subjects of a more immediate and 
transitory nature than the charges. Besides these occasional pro 
nouncements, Hobart delivered an address at every convention in 
which he gave an account of the state of the Church, reported 
the number of episcopal acts which he had performed, and some 
times touched upon other topics which seemed to him to require 
comment. This custom was not a new one, but it had been 
observed irregularly by the earlier bishops. 

Hobart's opposition to interdenominational Bible societies in 
volved him in a number of controversies during his episcopate, 
because these societies were very popular with all varieties of 
Protestants at that time, and with a section of the Episcopal 
Church. The most serious of these disputes occurred in 1823, 
when some strictures of Hobart on the American Bible Society 
were attacked in a pamphlet by William Jay, a son of John Jay. 
Hobart replied, and a prolonged debate ensued between the two 
of them. 

Near the close of his episcopate, Hobart got into a dispute with 
a few of his clergy in the City of New York who had organized 
a society known as the Protestant Episcopal Clerical Association. 
The objects of the association were simply personal intercourse 
and mutual improvement, but as a majority, though not all, of its 
members were Evangelicals, Hobart distrusted it, and issued a 
pastoral letter against it. As the members had no desire to make 
their association an instrument of party, they promptly disbanded, 
but they felt obliged to defend themselves from the charges of 
the pastoral, and so another pamphlet war ensued. 

These controversies are mentioned merely because they serve to 



illustrate Hobart's religious position and the zeal with which he 
held it. The subjects with which they dealt were not, after all, 
of great importance, and the impression which they tend to 
create of dissension within the diocese is an erroneous one. An 
overwhelming majority, both of the clergy and the laity through 
out the state of New York, were in sympathy with most of Ho- 
bart's policies and warmly attached to him personally. With the 
exception of the Jay family, the few who were not in sympathy 
with him rarely ventured upon public opposition. The Clerical 
Association was not intended as an opposition measure at all, and 
its members were much surprised when Hobart so interpreted it. 

Valuable as Hobart's various presentations of Church principles 
may well have been, it was not in them but in his tireless ef- His Work 
forts for the building up of his diocese that his greatest services as a 
lay. New York at this time presented a situation which has been 
rather too rare in our Church history: a splendid opportunity for 
development with a man in charge who was ideally fitted to take 
advantage of it, and with at least tolerably adequate resources at 
his back. The part of New York state which lies west of the 
Hudson had remained entirely unsettled in colonial times, except 
for one or two trading posts and forts. With the coming of the 
nineteenth century this region began to be filled up with settlers 
who were poured into it by the first wave of westward migration 
from New England. This movement was approaching its highest 
momentum when Hobart became bishop, and it continued at a 
high rate throughout his episcopate. 

In a weak diocese not even the ablest and most energetic of 
bishops, as Hobart certainly was, could have done much to take Financial 
advantage of the opportunity thus presented, for at that time Su PP rt 
there was no possibility of obtaining help from outside. As we 
have seen, however, the Church had been growing quietly but 
steadily in New York during the period of alleged deadness, and 
in the older part of the state it was now in a fairly strong posi 
tion. Trinity, thanks to the large landed endowment which it 
had inherited from colonial times, and which, in spite of occa 
sional manifestations of jealousy by the legislature, it had suc 
ceeded in preserving since, was the richest parish in the Episcopal 
Church and, probably, in any American denomination. Under 
the prudent management of Provbost and Moore, its resources 


had increased and from the first it used its surplus generously in 
helping weaker parishes. When Hobart came into practical con 
trol of the parish after Bishop Moore's illness and Dr. Beach's 
retirement, these gifts were increased to such an extent that the 
finances of the parish were impaired, and a curtailment had to 
follow. Under Hobart's stirring influence the laity of the city and 
state were roused from the habits o inactivity which had been 
produced by the colonial Establishment, and they generously sup 
ported the missionary society and other organizations which were 
called into being. 

Before Hobart's election the Church had expanded along the 

Growth of the Hudson, and a few missionaries, of whom the most notable were 

Church in Davenport Phelps and Daniel Nash, later known as "Father 

New or - Kash," had been sent to serve the western counties, but the work 

there was definitely in its infancy. In 1815, Hobart wrote to the 

lieutenant-governor protesting against a proposed law which 

would have forbidden ministers to perform marriages outside of 

the counties where they resided, on the ground that there were 

many counties where no Episcopal minister was resident, and 

this, too, though the number of clergymen in the state had 

doubled since his consecration. By the time of his death in 1830 

there was probably not an important community in the state 

that did not have its Episcopal parish and resident clergyman, 

and in Rochester and Buffalo there were two parishes. 

In 1812, at the end of his first year as bishop, Hobart reported 
the confirmation of five hundred persons and the visitation of 
parishes in Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Ontario, and Otsego 
counties, all of which are in central or western New York. 
Four churches had been consecrated, including St. Peter's, Au 
burn, in Cayuga County. In 1813 he reported eleven hundred 
confirmations. Seven hundred and eighty of these were in New 
York City, but the rest had been confirmed in a visitation to the 
towns along the Hudson, and the counties of the "Southern Tier." 
Every year thereafter saw the visitation of a large part of the 
state, and almost every year saw the consecration of one or more 
new churches. The visitations were not merely occasions for Con 
firmation or consecration, but they brought, both to the pastor 
and his people, inspiration, advice, and, if necessary, material 
help. In between them, moreover, Hobart was in constant corre- 



spondence with his clergy, who turned to him for help and advice 
in every problem from the wearing of a surplice or dealing with 
anti-Masons to saving their churches from foreclosure. " They 
never turned in vain. Somehow, somewhere, Hobart found means 
to help them in every difficulty. 

In order to obtain support for his work, and to arouse the 
laity to a sense of their obligations to the Church, Hobart organ- organized 
ized a large number of societies for the pursuit of various churchly Societies 
ends. Some of these he had formed, or helped to form, before his 
elevation to the episcopate. Thus the Protestant Episcopal Society 
for the Promotion of Religion and Learning in the State of New 
York was organized under his leadership and that of Bishop 
Moore in 1802, its objects being to help in educating theological 
students, and to aid in missionary work. This was followed in 
1806 by the New York Protestant Episcopal Theological Edu 
cation Society, devoted more exclusively to the training of candi 
dates for Holy Orders, by the New York Bible and Common 
Prayer Book Society in 1809, the Protestant Episcopal Tract So 
ciety in 1810, and the Young Men's Auxiliary Bible and Common 
Prayer Book Society in 1816. Subsequently he organized a dio 
cesan missionary society, and the New York Protestant Episcopal 
Sunday School Society. All of these societies were originally only 
statewide, though some of them later became affiliated with na 
tional institutions. Hobart's distrust of the Evangelicals made him 
somewhat hesitant about participating in general Church organi 
zations unless he was sure of being able to control them. He also 
organized a publishing house, the Protestant Episcopal Press, 
which flourished for a number of years, and he became the 
proprietor of the Church-man s Magazine, formerly published at 
New Haven, and moved it to New York. 

Hobart combined the direction of the largest parish in the 
country with the duties of the episcopate, for he became rector Bishop 
of Trinity after the death of Bishop Moore, in 1815, having been Onderdonk 
in practical charge of the parish since 1811. After his own death, 
in 1830, the two positions were separated, the Rev. Benjamin 
Treadwell Onderdonk, a brother of the Assistant Bishop of 
Pennsylvania, succeeding Hobart as bishop, while the Rev. Wil 
liam Berrian succeeded him as rector. Under Bishop Onderdonk 
the diocese continued to prosper, though, as the course of empire 


of Eastern 

Early Career 
of Griswold 

had now proceeded farther westward, its growth was less spec 
tacular. By 1838 it had become strong enough to be divided, and 
the Diocese of Western New York was organized, making the 
first instance of the formation of a diocese which was not 
bounded by state lines, except for an abortive attempt which had 
been made in the 1790*s to combine western New Hampshire and 
eastern Vermont into one diocese. The first Bishop of Western 
New York was William Heathcote De Lancey, a descendant of 
that Colonel Heathcote who figured so prominently in our account 
of colonial New York and Connecticut. 

The Eastern Diocese, over which Griswold was to preside, 
included the states of Massachusetts (to which Maine was still 
attached), Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont. It was 
organized in 1811 as the result of overtures which had been made 
to the other states by Massachusetts in 1809. Its exact character 
was never clearly determined, but it was commonly described as 
a "federated diocese," a type of institution of which the only other 
example in our history was the short-lived Southwestern Diocese 
which was organized in imitation of this one but proved unsuc 
cessful. Essentially, it was a device to obtain the services of a 
bishop for several states without giving any one state a special 
claim upon him. The constituent states retained their own 
diocesan organizations and functioned independently in all mat 
ters not relating to the episcopate, including the sending of dele 
gates to the General Convention. It was, in fact, several years 
before that body gave an official recognition to the Eastern Diocese 
as such, except to list Griswold as its bishop in the journals. 
When his testimonials were presented in 1811, the House of 
Bishops required proof that his election had been concurred in 
by each of the individual states before they would consent to his 
consecration. When Maine finally became separated from Massa 
chusetts, it immediately organized itself as a separate diocese, yet 
retained the services of the bishop. 

Griswold himself was about ten years older than Hobart, hav 
ing been born in Simsbury, Connecticut, in 1766. His mother's 
family, the Viets, were of German extraction and had been Pres 
byterians until they were brought into the Church by his uncle, 
Roger Viets, who was converted while at Yale, and became a mis 
sionary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. The 


Griswolds, who were of English origin, had always been Church 
men. The future bishop was prevented by the Revolutionary 
War and an early marriage from obtaining a college education, 
but he enjoyed a satisfactory equivalent in the tuition of Roger 
Viets, a man of learning, and in private study. He became a can 
didate for Holy Orders in 1794 and was ordained deacon and 
priest by Bishop Seabury the next year. After serving for some 
time as rector of three small parishes in Litchfield County, Con 
necticut, he accepted a call to Bristol, Rhode Island, in 1804. This 
had been a strong parish in colonial times, but the Revolution 
and the long vacancy in the rectorship which followed had 
reduced it to a point where it had only twenty-five families and 
twenty communicants. Under Griswold's skilful ministrations it 
rapidly revived and soon surpassed even its colonial strength. 

It was probably this pastoral success that led to Griswold's elec 
tion as bishop of the new diocese, for he had done nothing to 
make himself conspicuous outside of his own field of work. He 
had participated in the early measures for the organization of the 
Eastern Diocese, but he was contemplating a return to Connecti 
cut at the time of the first convention, and only attended it be 
cause an accident had prevented a visit to his prospective parish. 
His election came as a surprise to him, for he himself had favored 
Hobart for the post, and it was only after considerable hesitation 
that he accepted the office. 

In character Griswold was in many respects the opposite of 
Hobart. He was outwardly cool and deliberate where Hobart was His 
impulsive and emotional, and while Hobart's restless energy Character 
pushed him ahead in any movement in which he participated, 
Griswold's shyness and self-distrust prevented him from accepting 
leadership until it was thrust upon him. He was less gifted than 
Hobart in social qualities, and though he was not without a cer 
tain quiet charm, his bashfulness and reserve prevented him, 
except among his intimates, from being the delightful companion 
that Hobart could be. The general affection with which he came 
to be regarded arose rather from a gradual appreciation of his 
kindness, tact, and simple-hearted devotion to the cause he served, 
than from any more glamorous appeal to popularity. It was, per 
haps, only in their whole-souled devotion to duty that the two 
men can be said to have resembled one another, though Griswold, 


like many quiet men, seems to have been all on fire within, and in 
his preaching was inclined, like most of the Evangelicals, to 
emotionalism, frequently moving his hearers to tears. 

Though, as has been said, there had been some recuperation 
Condition and within the states included in the Eastern Diocese before its organi- 
o zation, the church was still in a precarious condition in most 
rn of them. The Boston churches, with the exception of King's 
Chapel, which was irrevocably lost, had been brought back to a 
healthy condition, Bristol had been revived by Griswold himself, 
and Newport was flourishing under the able leadership of Theo 
dore Dehon, subsequently Bishop of South Carolina, but, on the 
other hand, the Church at Portland seemed about to expire, that 
at Marblehead was very weak, that at Taunton was just beginning 
to show signs of life, that at Bridgewater was merely a name, and 
many parishes had been lost sight of altogether. According to a 
later statement of Griswold's, there were at that time thirteen 
church buildings in Massachusetts, "three of them of but little 
value," four in Rhode Island, five in New Hampshire, two in 
Maine, of which that at Portland "was without a parish," and 
none in Vermont. To serve these churches there were, according 
to various estimates, fifteen or sixteen clergymen in the four states. 
Moreover, the future prospects of the diocese seemed much less 
encouraging than those which were presented in New York. The 
westward migration, which was filling up a large section of that 
state, was draining New England and taking from it precisely 
those younger and more restless spirits who would be most likely 
to turn to a Church which departed from the prevailing tradi 
tions of the region. Yet this very circumstance, while it increased 
the difficulty of the work, made it also vitally important, for if a 
portion of these emigrants could be won over before they left, 
they would form nuclei of the Church in the territories to which 
they went. At the same time, the diocese had much more feeble 
resources for carrying out its task than did New York. The 
strongest parishes, those at Boston, were not only much less 
wealthy than Trinity Church, New York, but they were also 
much less generous, and were inclined to show but little interest 
in the affairs of the Church beyond their own boundaries. 

There was, however, one circumstance which operated in favor 
of the growth of the Church in New England. The breakdown 


of Puritanism, whose early stages we noticed in colonial times, Growth of the 
was proceeding at an accelerated pace, and the religious opinions Diucese 
of many were becoming increasingly unsettled. The bitter preju 
dices against episcopacy were gradually dying out, and the pious, 
temperate, and somewhat Puritanical character of its present rep 
resentative hastened their demise. To this situation and to the 
herculean labors of Bishop Griswold must be attributed the re 
markable growth which came to the Church during the thirty 
years of his episcopate. In 1811-12 he made his first visitation of 
the diocese, and the people of a great many parishes in western 
Massachusetts and in the other states had their first sight of a 
bishop. On this tour he confirmed 1,212 persons, ordained one dea 
con and two priests, consecrated two churches, and admitted five 
candidates for orders. In 1831 he reported 530 confirmations at 
forty-seven services, and in 1833 he spoke of having preached 123 
times outside of his own parish. These are not exceptional years, 
but are mentioned simply as typical examples of his yearly work. 
Though he continued, until the last few years of his life, to serve 
as rector at Bristol and later at Salem, it was his custom to visit 
all of the parishes in his diocese annually, traveling by stage-coach 
or horseback among the towns of New England from Rhode 
Island to Maine. That he did not work himself into an early grave, 
as Hobart did, was not because he worked less, but because he 
had inherited a constitution of unusual vigor. 

In 1839, four years before his death, he summarized the results 
of his work by contrasting the state of the diocese then with 
what it had been in 1811. In Massachusetts, seven of the thirteen 
churches had been rebuilt, and the total number had been in 
creased to thirty-eight. Rhode Island's four churches had become 
seventeen, and one was being built. In New Hampshire the five 
churches had increased to nine, and for the two in Maine there 
were now five. Vermont, which had been without a church 
building in 1811, had become strong enough to separate from the 
Eastern Diocese in 1832 and elect its own bishop, having at that 
time twelve churches, with four more being built. 

At the time of Griswold's consecration it had been thought 
that the life of one man would not be long enough to set the Division of the 
individual dioceses upon their feet, and that the federation Diocese 
would have to continue longer. Griswold, however, lived to be 


seventy-seven and his work was so successful that only the un 
willingness of the several states to relinquish his supervision pre 
vented the dissolution of the diocese before his death. Vermont did 
withdraw in 1832, choosing John Henry Hopkins as its bishop. 
Massachusetts elected an assistant bishop, Manton H. Eastburn, in 
1H42, who became bishop of that diocese on Griswold's death in 
1843. After that event, Rhode Island elected John Prentiss Kcwley 
Henshaw its bishop and he also exercised jurisdiction in Maine 
until George Burgess became bishop there in 1847. New Hamp 
shire elected a bishop, Carlton Chase, in 1843. 

Griswold, as might be expected from his background, had been 
Gmwold's inclined to High Churchmanship in the early days of his min- 
Mcthods j str y B ^ t j east ^ ^ e te j| s us t j iat? f H ow i n g the example of those 

whom he thought wiser than himself, he was accustomed to lay 
a good deal of stress on the distinctive principles of the Church. 
In time he decided that this was unwise, and began instead to 
emphasize the fundamental truths of the Gospel. In other words, 
he adopted the Evangelical ideal, and, though he tried to avoid 
partisanship, he administered the diocese more or less along 
Evangelical lines. He was not as prolific of organizations as Ho- 
bart, but he, or those under him, created a number to support the 
work of the diocese. Missionary societies of one sort or another 
were organized in all of the states. Massachusetts, in 1836, made 
its missionary work a function of its convention, and elected a 
diocesan Board of Missions in imitation of the General Board, 
an example which was followed by most of the dioceses of the 
country sooner or later. In Rhode Island the missionary work was 
supported through the Clerical Association or Convocation. 
Prayer Book, tract, and Sunday school societies were also organ 
ized, and many of the clergy cooperated with the interdenomi 
national Bible societies, of which Griswold approved. He deliv 
ered occasional "Charges," but not so many as Hobart, and upon 
subjects of a less controversial nature. Before he became Presiding 
Bishop in 1836 he prided himself upon never interfering in mat 
ters that lay outside of his own diocese, but he was, nevertheless, 
a prime mover in one of the most important actions of the Gen 
eral Church at this period, the organization of the Domestic and 
Foreign Missionary Society, of which more will be said later. 
The revival of the Church in the South began about the same 



BUILT IN 1837 

From the architect's design, printed in the Seminary Catalog 

for 1834. 

Courtesy, The Rcliyiiws Motion Picture Foundation 



time as the expansion in the North, the bishops o the second Revival o 
generation coming there within a few years of Hobart and Gris- thc C 
wold. In Virginia the most important leaders of the revival were MeS 
Richard Channing Moore and William Meade. The latter, a Moore 
native of Virginia, born in 1789, was a man of intense, if narrow, 
piety, and his strengthening influence began to be felt in the 
diocese from the very beginning of his ministry. Moore was a man 
of milder temper, but equally devout and equally laborious, having 
some resemblance to Bishop Griswold in character. He was 
elected bishop in 1814, after Madison's death, largely through 
the exertions of Meade. Both men were pronounced Evangelicals, 
and in their efforts to reanimate the Church they followed the 
lines of their party, holding frequent revivals and "protracted 
meetings," though these were probably of a less ecstatic nature 
than those held by other denominations. They also organized 
missionary societies and clerical associations to support the work 
of the diocese. To compensate for the shortage of ministers the 
rectors of parishes which were supplied made a practice of visit 
ing those which were vacant whenever they could. Moore also 
made an extensive use of candidates for Holy Orders, permitting 
them to preach, in spite of a canon of 1804 forbidding the practice. 
The Evangelical influence in the diocese led to the insistence upon 
much more rigid standards of personal conduct and a higher tone 
of spiritual life than had been customary in colonial times, but, 
as is generally the case, such an insistence was welcomed more 
often than it was objected to by the laity, and on visiting parishes 
which were apparently dead, the Bishop and his clergy were 
frequently surprised at the eagerness with which the people 
rallied to the standard of the Church. 

Under such leadership, the diocese rapidly regained its vitality, 
and in a few years it had become one of the strongest in the 
country. Meade was^unanimously elected assistant bishop in 1828, 
but with a provision that he should not succeed upon the death 
of Bishop Moore unless he were chosen by the diocese to do so. 
This condition met with the disapproval of the General Conven 
tion, and though that body consented to Meade's consecration, 
it passed a canon to forbid such an arrangement in the future. 
When Moore died in 1841, Meade was named his successor with 
out any difficulty. Moore also acted as Bishop of North Carolina 


from 1819-23, and he performed some episcopal services in Mary 
land between the period from the death of Bishop Kemp in 1827 
to the consecration of Bishop Stone in 1830. 

In South Carolina the revival of the Church was equally rapid, 
South and had probably begun somewhat earlier. That state differed 

Carolina from its neighbors in sharing with the more important northern 
states the advantage of having a large urban center to provide a 
base of operations in the restoration of the Church, for Charles 
ton, though its prestige was declining, was still an important 
city. As has been intimated, Bishop Smith's episcopate was not 
a very active one, but with the coming of Nathaniel Bowen as 
rector of St. Michael's, Charleston, a more vigorous spirit was felt 
in the diocese. In 1804 Bowen succeeded in bringing about a 
revival of the diocesan convention, which had been suspended 
since 1798 because of the jealousy of the vestries. In 1809, with 
the cooperation of his successor, Theodore Dehon, he organized 
the Society for the Advancement of Christianity in South Caro 
lina, which, like the later society of the same name in Pennsyl 
vania, was designated to assist candidates for Holy Orders in 
obtaining an education and to support diocesan missionaries. 

Bowen was called to become the first rector of Grace Church, 

Theodore New York, in 1809, and Dehon, who had had a successful rec- 

Dehon torate at Newport, was chosen to succeed him. After visiting in 

Charleston for a few months he accepted the call, and began to 

carry on the good work begun by Dr. Bowen. 

One of the objections of the laity to the diocesan convention 
was the ex officio membership of the clergy, and to overcome 
their prejudice against this by stressing the religious character of 
the gatherings, Dehon secured the adoption of a rule that they 
should always be opened with the Eucharist. In- his parish he 
succeeded in "reviving the custom of public baptism, though he 
carefully avoided any open controversy on the subject. His lead 
ership in the diocese was acknowledged by his election as presi 
dent of the Standing Committee in 1811, and in the following year 
he was chosen bishop. Though he lived less than five years after 
his consecration, he left the diocese in a vigorous and healthy 
condition when he died. Besides performing the regular duties 
of the episcopate and carrying on the work of his parish, he kept 
up a familiar intercourse with his clergy, and helped in the vacant 


parishes, often Instructing the candidates for Confirmation him 
self. He projected a parish for the poor of Charleston, in which 
the pews should be rented by wealthy patrons but left open 
for general use one of the first proposals for a "free Church" in 
this country. He also interested himself in the charitable institu 
tions of the city, often holding services in the orphan asylum and 
the poorhouse. He served for a time on the board of managers 
of the Charleston Bible Society, but resigned, along with the 
other Episcopal clergymen who had participated in it, w T hen tend 
encies began to develop which seemed likely to endanger its 
non-sectarian character. When he died in 1817, Dr. Bowen was 
called back into South Carolina to succeed him, and the diocese 
was insured a continuance of prosperity under that able and de 
voted prelate. The Churchmanship of South Carolina was much 
less definitely Evangelical than that of Virginia, and, indeed, can 
not be readily identified as belonging to any party. Dehon was, per 
haps, mildly Evangelical and Bowen might possibly be described 
as a moderate High Churchman, but neither was in any sense 
a party man. It is not surprising, therefore, that under their leader 
ship the diocese was conspicuous for its support of the general 
institutions of the Church, regardless of which party happened 
to control them. 

In Maryland the revival of the Church was less rapid than in 
Virginia and South Carolina, but it began earlier and continued Maryland 
steadily throughout this and a good part of the preceding period, 
though as late as 1817 it was reported that parts of the diocese 
were still decayed. Claggett became incapacitated by ill health 
in 1814 and James Kemp was elected his assistant, succeeding to 
the full jurisdiction on Claggett's death in 1816. Though he also 
became Provost of the University of Maryland in 1815, and so 
continued throughout his life, he was, nevertheless,- conscientious 
in the performance of his episcopal duties. He was killed in a 
stage-coach accident in 1827, and there was a vacancy of three 
years in the episcopate before he was succeeded by William Murray 
Stone in 1830. Under Kemp and Stone the diocese acquired a 
generally High Church tendency which prepared it for the 
Anglo-Catholicism of Bishop Whittingham. 

North Carolina, after its abortive attempt to secure the conse 
cration of Charles Pettigrew, lapsed into an inactivity from which 




New Jersey 

in Pennsyl 

it did not begin to rouse itself until 1817, when it held a con 
vention and adopted a diocesan organization. At that time there 
were three clergymen in the state. In 1818 the convention organ 
ized a diocesan missionary society, and the next year it placed 
itself under the jurisdiction of Bishop Moore of Virginia, where 
it remained until 1823, when it obtained its first bishop, John 
Stark Ravenscroft. Under him the diocese grew steadily, but the 
Church never became as strong in North Carolina as in its neigh 
bors to the north and south. Ravenscroft was a High Churchman, 
and his successor, Bishop Ives, was even more so, but the conver 
sion of the latter to Roman Catholicism in 1853 threw the diocese 
back into the Evangelical fold. 

New Jersey continued under outside jurisdiction, part of the 
time from Pennsylvania and part of the time from New York, 
until 1815, when it chose the Rev. John Croes, rector at New 
Brunswick, to be its bishop. During his episcopate, which lasted 
until 1832, and that of his successor, George Washington Doane, 
the Church attained a strong position in the state. Delaware 
shifted its supervision from Bishop White to Bishop Claggett in 
1804 and back again to Bishop White, together with Bishop 
Henry Onderdonk, in 1831. In 1816, because of the depressed 
state of the Church in Delaware, the diocese requested that one 
of the only two clergymen there the Rev. Robert Clay and the 
Rev. William Wickes visit every congregation in the state twice 
a year. The diocese did not obtain a bishop of its own until 
1841, when Alfred Lee was elected. 

In the preceding chapter, we carried the story of the growth 
of the Church in Pennsylvania down to the election of the 
assistant bishop in 1827. That election was, unfortunately, at 
tended with a good deal of controversy. The Evangelicals and 
High Churchmen were more nearly balanced in Pennsylvania 
than in the other states and the conflict between them was conse 
quently sharper. Though Bishop White had been a Low Church 
man, in the older sense of the term, he had no sympathy what 
ever with the Evangelicals, and they were, perhaps, the only group 
to whom he ever tended to be seriously unfair. Habitually 
reticent in all personal matters himself, he could not understand 
the freedom with which they discussed the intimate details of 
their spiritual life, and, observing the note of self-praise which 


undoubtedly sometimes entered into such discussions, he was 
unable to sense the earnest spirituality which at least as often lay 
behind them. He was offended, too, by the rather cavalier manner 
in which the more extreme members o the party dealt with the 
rubrics and canons of the Church. Though his own opinions had 
not undergone any marked change, he tended in his later years 
to act more and more with the High Churchmen, by way of 
reaction from the Evangelicals, and this tendency was probably 
strengthened by his strong personal affection for Bishop Hobart, 
Not only did he criticize the Evangelicals severely on a number of 
occasions, but after 1825 he adopted the practice, in revising the 
diocesan journals for publication, of deleting from the parochial 
reports the general observations upon the spiritual condition of 
their parishes which the members of that party were accustomed 
to make, but which he regarded as being either false or irrelevant. 

On their part, the Evangelicals did what they could to oppose 
him, though generally in an indirect manner, for his personal 
prestige was so great as to make direct opposition unwise. They 
organized missionary societies of their own, instead of cooper 
ating with the diocesan society, and carried on work over which 
the Bishop could exercise but little control. They also sent such 
candidates for Holy Orders as were attached to their party to the 
Virginia Seminary, which was under Evangelical leadership, in 
stead of to the General Seminary in New York, which White 

The controversy reached a climax when White, under the 
impression that his clergy desired him to do so, asked for the Disputed 
election of an assistant bishop. At the special convention held for Electlon 
this purpose in 1826 the "friends of the Bishop," including the 
High Churchmen and a few survivors of the Bishop's own party, 
nominated the Rev. Bird Wilson, a professor at General Seminary 
and a former pupil of White's. The Evangelicals nominated Wil 
liam Meade, who had not yet been elected assistant bishop of 
Virginia. Neither side could obtain a majority of both clergy 
and laity, however, and so the election was postponed until the 
regular convention of 1827. In the meantime a good deal of elec 
tioneering was carried on, and both candidates withdrew because 
of the bitterness that was being displayed. The Evangelicals then 
proposed to back the Rev. James Milnor, rector of St. George's 


Church, New York, but he also declined to run. At the conven 
tion of 1827, the High Churchmen found themselves with a 
majority of the laity, and a majority of one among the clergy. 
After Wilson's withdrawal they had intended to back John Henry 
Hopkins, the rector at Pittsburgh, but as he would not vote for 
himself, it was necessary to look outside of the state, and they 
finally decided upon Henry Ustick Onderdonk, then rector of a 
church in New York, and a close personal friend of Hobart's. 
Onderdonk was accordingly elected, but a great deal of bitterness 
resulted, especially because some clergymen whom the minority 
thought entitled to seats in the convention had been excluded. 
The dispute subsided after a time, but the rancor between the 
parties remained and eventually contributed to Onderdonk's un 
doing. In the meantime, however, he devoted himself assiduously 
to his duties and the diocese was undoubtedly strengthened by 
his work. 

It has been found necessary to go into some detail in discussing 
Importance of the growth of the Episcopal Church in the older states during the 
the Period period covered in this chapter because it is the period during 
which the Church attained the relative position among American 
religious groups which it has held ever since, not only in respect 
to numbers, but as to the character and location of its members 
as well, for by 1830 it had already become predominantly an urban 
and upper-class denomination. The general religious upheaval of 
the country, which began in colonial' times and which led to a 
realignment of the main divisions of American Protestantism, 
came to an end in the decade from 1830-40. Since then, though 
there have been occasional conversions one way or another, there 
has been no general shift from one denomination to another. The 
only religious bodies which have experienced a conspicuous 
change in their proportionate strength in later years have been 
those which have grown by immigration. 

As the Episcopal Church became accustomed to the idea of 
Theological national unity and felt a return of health and strength in most 
Education o f ; ts members, it naturally began to see the advisability of pro 
viding for some of its needs along national rather than diocesan 
lines. One of the most conspicuous of such needs was the provision 
of theological training for the many young men who must be 
induced to enter the Church's ministry if she were to meet the 


opportunities presented to her by a rapidly growing country. In 
colonial times most of the colleges of the country had .maintained 
theological professors under whom candidates for the ministry 
could obtain the necessary instruction, though if the college were 
not under Episcopalian control it would be necessary to supple 
ment this work with some study under a minister of the Church. 
After the Revolution, as the character of the colleges became less 
theological, this supplementary instruction became more important 
and a sort of apprentice system developed, the candidate placing 
himself under some more or less learned minister for the -pur 
pose of being instructed in theology. In 1801 the House of Depu 
ties of General Convention made an effort to standardize this 
system by asking the bishops to prepare a course of theological 
instruction, and at the next General Convention, that of 1804, a 
course of study prepared by Bishop White was officially adopted, 

It was not long, however, before the desirability of creating a 
definite institution for theological education began to be felt, and General 
the first move in this direction was made at the General Con- ^ mma ^ r 
vention of 1814 when Christopher E. Gadsden of the diocese of isi4 SC ' 
South Carolina introduced a resolution to found a general theo 
logical seminary for the whole Church. The measure was lost 
that year, only South Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, and a portion of the lay delegation from Maryland sup 
porting it. A resolution, originating in the House of Bishops, was, 
however, adopted requesting the bishop or other ecclesiastical 
authority in each diocese to enquire into and consider the advisa 
bility of establishing a general seminary, and to report at the 
next convention. 

The reason why the measure was defeated at this time was that 
many of the leaders of the Church thought that the end could Committee 
be better obtained by diocesan seminaries. In 1817, however, it ^3^ mtcd ' 
was decided to go through with the measure of founding a gen 
eral seminary, and a committee composed of three bishops, White, 
Hobart, and Croes; three clergymen, Charles Wharton, William 
Harris, and Thomas Y. How, who had been ordained since the 
epistolary controversy referred to earlier; and three laymen, William 
Meredith, Rufus King, and Charles F. Mercer, were appointed to 
make the necessary arrangements. None of the episcopal members 
of the committee was much in favor of the project, for White and 


Hobart preferred diocesan seminaries and Crocs had doubts 
about the desirability of any seminary, but they proceeded 
nevertheless to carry out the task assigned them as well as 
they were able, appointing Nathaniel Bowen and William H. 
Wilmer, later replaced by Thomas Church Brownell, as agents 
to raise money in the Middle and Southern States respectively. 
In 1818 they appointed two more agents, Dr. How and Samuel 
Farmar Jarvis, a son of Bishop Jarvis, to raise money in New 
England and resolved to start the seminary as soon as they had 
enough money to pay the professors. It was at first intended that 
there should be three of these, Dr. Wharton, Dr. Jarvis, and 
Samuel H. Turner, a gifted young protege of Bishop White's 
from Pennsylvania, but as the funds were not sufficient for this 
purpose the number was reduced to two, and in the spring of 
Instruction 1819 the General Theological Seminary began its existence in New 
Begun, 1819 York City with Jarvis and Turner for its faculty, and with a 
student body of six, two of whom, Manton Eastburn and George 
Washington Doane, subsequently became bishops. Jarvis resigned 
shortly afterward to become rector of St. Paul's Church, Boston, 
which had been organized by his admirers, and Turner was left 
as the only professor. 

Though Hobart had cooperated in organizing the Seminary, 
he showed little interest in it after it was founded, and it met with 
a cold reception in New York. With the coming of winter, the 
Seminary's treatment proved literally cold, for it was forbidden the 
privilege of meeting in a little room it had been using in St. John's 
Chapel, unless it would supply its own firewood, so that in the end 
meetings were held afternoons in a room where Lawson Carter, 
one of the student, kept a girls' school during the mornings. In 
1820 the General Convention moved the Seminary to New Haven, 
Connecticut, where the presence of Dr. Brownell, its former agent, 
as bishop promised a more friendly reception. Hobart was glad 
to get rid of the Seminary, for he wanted to found a diocesan semi 
nary, and promptly did so. While at New Haven, the General 
Seminary "was patronized by many of the leading Churchmen, 
especially in South Carolina and New York City," in spite of the 
fact that Hobart objected to the soliciting of contributions for it 
in his diocese. John Pintard, a New York merchant, gave a large 



number of books to form the basis of its library. The Seminary also 
had its faculty doubled, the Rev. Bird Wilson becoming the second 
professor, and added $29,690 to its endowment. 

In 1821 another New York layman, Jacob Sherred, died and 
left $60,000 to go either to a general seminary, if established in The Starred 
New York, or to a seminary established by that diocese. A dis- 
agreement naturally arose as to whether the General Seminary, 
if it returned to New York, or the diocesan seminary already 
functioning there would have the best claim to the legacy, and 
a special General Convention was called to settle the dispute. As 
the best legal opinion favored the claims of the diocesan seminary, 
it was found necessary to yield to a compromise which was, in 
reality, a surrender to New York. The two institutions were to 
be united and the faculties of both to be retained. The trustees, 
except for the bishops, who were ex officio members of the Board, 
were to be elected by the dioceses in proportion to the numbers 
of their clergy and the size of their contributions to the Seminary. 
This gave New York almost, if not quite, a majority of the total 
Board, and, as that body would naturally meet in New York 
City, there was little doubt that the diocese could muster a work 
ing majority at any meeting. Such an arrangement imparted a 
partisan character to the Seminary, which it was a long time in 
losing, and cost the support of some of the Evangelicals, but it 
resulted in the active cooperation of the most energetic, and, next 
to White, the most influential of the bishops, for Hobart promptly 
forgot his former opinions and decided that the founding of 
diocesan seminaries showed a lack of loyalty to the Church. In 
1829 the Seminary was left $100,000 by Frederick Kohne of Penn 
sylvania and South Carolina, but its use of the legacy was delayed 
for some time by a life interest which had been bequeathed to the 
testator's widow. In the meantime, the finances of the institution 
became precarious, for the existence of the bequest caused other 
contributors to lose interest. Its first building was erected in 1827. 

Even before the delivery of General Seminary to New York, 
the Diocese of Virginia began to seek some local provision for the The Virginia 
education of its candidates, endeavoring, in 1820, to secure the Scmmar y 
appointment of a theological professor at William and Mary. 
When this project failed, it was decided to establish a diocesan 


seminary at Williamsburg, and efforts to raise money for that pur 
pose \\crc begun in 1821. In 1824 the Virginia Seminary opened 
with the Rev. Reuel Keith and the Rev. William H. Wilmer as 
irs first professors. Its location had, however, been changed to 
Alexandria, and there it has continued its useful career ever since, 
earning especial honor by the number of its graduates who have 
gone into the mission field. As might be expected from the Semi 
nary's origin, its ecclesiastical tradition has been Evangelical. 

Two other eastern dioceses, Maryland and Massachusetts, made 
Efforts to efforts to found seminaries at this period, but without success. The 
Found a _ Maryland attempt, which was begun in 1822, w r as given up the 

f! mma , ry !I J year following at the insistence of Bishop Kemp, who was opposed 
Massachusetts ~ . , & . , , , t A i r 

to any institution that would compete with General Seminary. 
In Massachusetts two attempts were made. In 1830 a committee 
was appointed to consider the expediency of establishing a diocesan 
seminary and at the next convention it reported that, as the Rev. 
John Henry Hopkins, who had been instructing theological stu 
dents in western Pennsylvania, had come as assistant at Trinity 
Church, Boston, with the hope of continuing his work there, it 
recommended the founding of a seminary at Cambridge under his 
leadership. Some beginning of the work was, in fact, actually 
made, but Hopkins felt that he was not receiving sufficient en 
couragement, and was induced to accept the episcopate in Ver 
mont in 1832. In 1835 the project was revived. The year following 
the committee appointed to consider it reported the raising of 
$32,000, and more was pledged at the convention. These bright 
prospects were destroyed by the panic of 1837 and the ensuing 

There were some changes in the outward arrangements of 
Church life which took place at this period, the effects of 
which can still be seen in our ecclesiastical habits. The interior 
arrangement of the church building was not much altered until 
after the Oxford Movement, though a growing emphasis upon 
the Eucharist led to an increase of the practice of placing the 
Communion Table between the pulpit and the congregation. The 
outward appearance of the church was altered, however, by the 
shift from Greek to Gothic, or pseudo-Gothic, as the standard 
pattern of Church architecture. This change began in the twenties 
and thirties, but it was some years before the true principles of 



Gothic style came to be well enough understood to make possible 
the production of respectable examples. 

A more important development was the Sunday School Move 
ment. This had its origin in the work of Robert Raikes, an Eng- 
lish Churchman, at the close of the eighteenth century and spread 
rapidly among all denominations in England and America in the 
early years of the nineteenth. At first the schools were designed 
for the purpose of giving religious instruction and teaching the 
elements of reading and writing to the children of the poor, for 
whom state schools had not yet been provided. It was not long, 
however, before they were changed into a means of giving 
religious instruction to all the children of the parish, and thus 
took over the rector's traditional duty of catechizing the young 
people in his cure. It is to be feared that too many parents also 
shifted to them the responsibility which had previously been felt 
of providing religious instruction in the home. Supplementary 
to the Sunday schools, but not originally connected with them, 
were the Bible classes for adolescents of both sexes and, in some 
cases, for adults also. These originated among the Evangelicals, 
but in course of time they came to be adopted by other types of 
Churchmen also. 

The multiplication of parish organizations of all sorts was a 
characteristic of the period, and there were few parishes, whether 
High or Low, which were without their complement of Sunday 
school societies, Bible, or Bible and Prayer Book societies, Tract 
societies, and female missionary societies. The last named were, 
perhaps, the most important, for they supplied a good deal of the 
support that was given to the missionary activities of the dioceses 
and, subsequently, of the general Church, raising money by their 
needlework and other products which they assembled and sold 
at fairs. In the western country, where there was a shortage of 
women, and, consequently, of female handiwork, these fairs prob 
ably had a real economic value and the amount of money raised 
by them was often quite large. 

The early nineteenth century was an era of cheap printing such 
as must excite the envy of everyone with an itching pen, and this Periodicals 
fact, combined with the high postage rates, which restricted most 
of the periodicals to a sectional circulation, led to a great multipli 
cation of journals of all sorts, religious or otherwise. Of those 


associated with the Episcopal Church, the most important, because 
it was most continuous in publication and came nearest to having 
a national circulation, was the Churchman's Magazine, controlled 
for a time by Hohart, of which the present Churchman is the 
successor. Other Church periodicals, more or less long-lived, were 
the Banner of the Church, published by G. W. Doane when he 
was at Boston; the Church Register, published at Philadelphia; 
and the Protestant Episcopalian and its successor, the Banner of 
the Cross, published in the same city. At a somewhat later time 
a periodical of some importance was the Church Journal, pub 
lished in New York by a son of Bishop Hopkins. It represented 
the Anglo-Catholic interest. More important than any of these, 
probably, was the Spirit of Missions, the official organ of the 
Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, which was started in 
1836 and has been published continuously ever since. 

The foundation of Church boarding schools, both for boys and 
Church girls, was also a characteristic feature of the period, a reaction, 

50 ls probably, from the secular tendencies that were appearing in 

other parts of the educational field. The movement had its begin 
ning, apparently, with the organization of the Flushing Institute, 
a boys' school at Flushing, Long Island, by William Augustus 
Muhlenberg in 1827. This school, though run on paternalistic 
lines, was successful as long as Muhlenberg remained at its head. 
He subsequently attached a college to it, which he called St. 
Paul's, and which was run in the same manner. His example was 
soon followed by a number of other prominent Churchmen, in 
cluding Bishop Hopkins and Bishop Doane. Most of the schools 
were shipwrecked, sooner or later, upon the rocks of finance, but 
Bishop Doane's St. Mary's Hall, a girls' school at Burlington, 
New Jersey, has survived, though its founder was nearly ruined 
by his efforts to carry it through the depression of 1837-40. 

Two Church colleges were also founded in the East at this 
Church period, in addition to the short-lived St. Paul's. Geneva, later 

cgcs Hobart College, was chartered in 1822 in connection with an 

attempt of Hobart's to found a branch theological seminary at 
Geneva, New York. The seminary was discontinued in 1826, but 
the college has continued to serve the Church down to the present 
time. Washington, later Trinity, College was founded at Hart 
ford, Connecticut, after an alliance of the Episcopalians with the 


Democrats had overcome the reluctance of the legislature to 
charter a college which might compete with Yale. Prior to its 
foundation, the Diocese of Connecticut had operated an Academy 
at Cheshire whose upper classes seem to have given very nearly the 
equivalent of a college education. 

The age was one for action rather than study, but the Church 
nevertheless possessed a number of distinguished scholars during Scholars of 
this period. The combination of scholarship with parochial work 
seems, indeed, to have been a more common practice then than 
now. Bishop White, in addition to his other activities, was the 
author of a number of able works upon various theological sub 
jects. The most important of those published were his Compara 
tive Views of the Controversy Between the Calmnists and the 
Armenians and Lectures on the Catechism. He was thoroughly 
familiar with the great English divines, and with the earlier Church 
Fathers, though he had but little regard for those who came after 
the third century. Bishop Hopkins was a yet more thorough stu 
dent of Patristics and was probably responsible in some measure 
for reviving the study of the Fathers in this country. He was also 
an authority on canon law and a number of other subjects, being, 
in fact, one of the most versatile men of his day. Before entering 
the ministry he had been manager of a large iron smelter and had 
become a successful lawyer. As an artist of some ability he had 
prepared the plates for Alexander Wilson's Ornithology, one of 
the first large publishing enterprises carried out in this country. 
At a later time, he and his son sought to recoup the family 
finances by taking up the new art of lithography. He also had a 
hand in the Gothic revival, having published a volume of designs 
for that style of architecture. 

Another scholar deserving mention Is Francis Lister Hawks, 
for some time rector of St. Thomas' Church, New York, who began 
the systematic study of American Church History and made some 
invaluable transcripts of those of the records of the Society for 
the Propagation of the Gospel and the Bishop of London. His 
work was carried on, in the succeeding period, by Bishop William 
Stevens Perry, to whose labors all subsequent historians of the 
American Episcopal Church must feel themselves indebted. 

Of the men who were on the faculty of General Theological 
Seminary, the two most distinguished scholars were probably 


Samuel H. Turner and Clement Clark Moore. Dr. Turner had, at 
one time or another, taught all of the subjects in the curriculum, 
but his specialty was the Old Testament, and in this field, though 
not himself a "Higher Critic," he was one of those who were 
responsible for introducing to the American public the German 
scholars who had developed this science. Dr. Moore, who was a 
son of Bishop Benjamin Moore, and the donor of the land upon 
which the Seminary was built, though a layman, was probably 
the outstanding Hebrew scholar of his day in America. He is best 
known to later generations, however, as the author of A Visit 
from St. Nicholas. 

It is probable that women have always been in a majority 
Preponderance among those who were actively interested in religion, but in the 
h T^ mC h ^ n i neteent h century this preponderance began to assume alarming 
proportions. The earliest complaints of the tendency came from 
the Evangelicals, and it seems probable that the highly emotional 
character of their movement was one of the causes of it. What 
ever may have been the faults of the older High Churchmanship, 
it possessed, at least, a sturdy masculinity that was lacking in later 
religious parties. An age in which it was possible for a popular 
religious author to write, "Supposing the degree of piety the 
same, the woman always exhibits it in a- more engaging view than 
the man," was obviously not a time in which we would look for 
the development of a virile faith, and there was, in fact, a senti 
mental quality to all of the religious movements which were char 
acteristic of the nineteenth century that is, perhaps, not unrelated 
to the present paucity of male attendants at our services. 




JL.HE DISTINCTION between missionary and non-mission 
ary work within the Church is necessarily an arbitrary one, since, Meaning of 
in the broadest sense of the term, all of the Church's work Is mis- * he , w rd 
sionary. For a good many years, the official usage of the Episcopal onary 
Church has tended to apply the term "missionary" to all activity 
which is not self-supporting, but as this necessarily conveys the 
implication that work which is self-supporting cannot be mission 
ary, the usage is unfortunate. Since some distinction is necessary, 
however, and since the growth of the Church in the older parts 
of the country has been discussed In the preceding chapter, mis 
sionary work, for the present purpose, may be defined as the 
work of the Church in entirely new territory, domestic or foreign, 
regardless of who pays for it. 

The earliest domestic missionaries of the Episcopal Church, if 
we use the term in the sense proposed, were, in fact, men who ar i y M^ 
relied upon whatever support they could obtain in the regions sionarics to 
to which they went, not upon the assistance of any regularly thcWcst 
organized missionary society, diocesan or national. Thus, Daniel 
Nash, the pioneer missionary of the Church in western New 
York, lived for many years upon the scanty contributions which 
the struggling settlers were able to give him, before he entered 
the employ of the diocesan missionary society, solely, as he said, 
to obtain an adequate support for his family. 

Nash ended his days in New York state, but some of these 
early missionaries, like the pioneers they served, followed the 
frontier steadily westward. The Rev. Palmer Dyer, for instance, 
left his parish in Syracuse, New York, when that place had be 
come a thriving village, to do his part in building up the Church 
in the "Far West," settling at Peoria, Illinois, when there was but 
one other Episcopal clergyman in the state, and no resident 



minister or organized religious society of any sort in the county. 
Ezekiel Gilbert Gear, who also began his work in western New 
York, wandered even farther, for after leaving New York state, 
where he had worked in the villages of Onondaga and Ithaca, he 
served in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Illinois, and eventually became the 
first missionary of the Church in Minnesota. There were many 
other such men who could be named, if space permitted, though, 
unfortunately, there were never nearly so many as were needed. 
We might mention Henry Caswall among them, because he 
wrote an interesting book on America and the American Church, 
which tells us a good deal about missionary life in the early nine 
teenth century. He was an Englishman who came to this coun 
try in 1828 and gave himself for some years to the work of the 
Church in the West. After serving in Ohio and Indiana, and 
acting as professor in a theological seminary founded by Bishop 
Bosworth Smith at Lexington, Kentucky, he traveled north to 
continue his labors in Canada. During part of the time that he 
worked in this country he was helped by the Domestic and For 
eign Missionary Society. 

The most prominent of these early missionaries, however, was 
Philander Philander Chase, the first Bishop of Ohio and Illinois. Chase, 
Chase and w j lo was a nat [ ve o f jsjew Hampshire, a brother of Senator Dudley 

His Mission ^. r Tr . i r o i T-W i i />! T 

to Ohio Chase of Vermont and uncle or Salmon Portland Chase, Lin 

coln's Secretary of the Treasury, began his labors in western New 
York. Ordained deacon by Bishop Provoost in 1798, he served 
for a time as an itinerant missionary, first in the neighborhood of 
Troy, New York, and later at Oneida Castle, Utica, and Auburn. 
From 1803 to 1805 he was rector of the Church at Poughkeepsie 
and taught a school there. In the latter year, on the recommenda 
tions of Hobart, Chase became the first rector of Christ Church, 
New Orleans. Ill health forced him to return north in 1811, and he 
became rector of Christ Church, Hartford, Connecticut. His spirit 
was too restless for the work of a quiet eastern parish, however, and 
in 1817 he went as missionary to Ohio, without any assured means 
of support, except a small private income. At the time of his 
coming to that state there was only one other Episcopal minister, 
the Rev. Roger Searle. In January, 1818, the two of them, with 
representatives of the laity, held a convention and organized the 
diocese. In June of the same year, when the number of resident 

Courtesy, The Religious Motion Picture Foundation 


Courtesy, "'The Lfaing Church" 

From an etching by Wil King. 


ministers had increased to four, a second convention was held, 
and Chase was elected bishop. 

There was, at this time, no general missionary society of the 
Church and the older dioceses had not yet sufficiently mastered 
their own problems to be able to lend much aid to, or even to 
take much interest in, the work of the West. It was, therefore, 
necessary for Ohio to struggle along as best it could on its own 
resources. One of its early missionaries, Dr. Joseph Doddridge, 
was able to support himself by his labors as a physician, and 
another, the Rev. Thomas A. Osborne, had a professorship at 
Cincinnati College, but the rest were compelled to rely upon 
what support their parishioners could give them, or to eke out 
their income, as did Chase, by teaching school. In 1821 they 
organized a diocesan missionary society, which may have given 
them some help. 

In 1823, when Chase was feeling greatly discouraged at the lack 
of interest in his work that was shown in the East, his son He^ Seeks 
called his attention to an article in a British periodical, in which 
his labors were very highly spoken of. This incident determined 
Chase to seek help from England, and on further reflection, he 
decided that such help could best take the form of founding a 
theological seminary to furnish him the ministers he so much 
needed. General Seminary was, it is true, already in existence, but, 
apart from the sometimes prohibitive expense of sending candi 
dates East, it was early observed that those who were sent tended 
to settle in eastern parishes after graduation. Accordingly, Chase 
sailed for England in 1823 to appeal for funds to found a western 

This application was disapproved by most of Chase's fellow 
bishops, because they thought it unwise to appeal to England for Opposition of 
any funds for the American Church, and it was bitterly opposed Hobart 
by Hobart as conflicting with the interests of General Seminary 
to which he was now whole-heartedly devoted. Hobart wrote to 
the other bishops and stirred their latent opposition into an active 
one. In his correspondence with them and with Chase, he hope 
lessly confused their ground of opposition with his own, repre 
senting to Chase that they agreed with him in objecting to the 
measure as opposed to the interests of General Seminary, though 
only one of them, Bishop Brownell, took this view, and though a 


resolution had been adopted by General Convention in 1820, when 
the General Seminary had been moved to New Haven, expressly 
reserving to the <;everal dioceses the right to found seminaries of 
their own. This resolution which, at the time, had had Hobart's 
warm approval, was not repealed when the Seminary returned to 
New York. Moreover, in a letter to White, Hobart professed to 
agree with the general opposition to all solicitations in England, 
though his own later conduct was quite inconsistent with this 

Hobart and Chase both sailed for England at about the same 
Founding of time, but Hobart carried his opposition to the length of refusing 
Coilf? to trave ' on *ke same Packet with Chase, lest it should seem that 

he approved of the latter's mission. He also wrote Chase that he 
was sailing for England solely for the benefit of his health, though 
at the time of his departure he had a commission from the trus 
tees of General Theological Seminary to solicit funds for that 
institution abroad. In this project he was not very successful, for 
he only appears to have remitted $946.67 to the trustees, but he 
did succeed in making a great deal of trouble for Chase, and for 
a time it seemed that the latter's visit would be a failure. Chase, 
however, was armed with a letter of introduction from Henry 
Clay to Lord Gambier, whom Clay had met while negotiating 
the Treaty of Ghent in 1814-15, and, through a casual meeting 
with George Wharton Marriott, an English High Church clergy 
man, he had the good fortune to obtain an introduction to Lord 
Kenyon, a leading nobleman of that party. Through these two 
noblemen he met other people of wealth and distinction and 
eventually from them and from Lord Bexley, Lady Rosse, and 
Miss Macfarlane, the daughter of a former Bishop of Inverness, 
he obtained enough money so that he felt justified in starting the 
seminary on his return to Ohio in 1824. To broaden its support 
he attached to it a college which before long began to overshadow 
the seminary. The institutions perpetuated the names of their 
aristocratic benefactors, the College being called Kenyon, the semi 
nary Bexley Hall, and the village which grew up around them, 
Gambier. The chapel was named in honor of Lady Rosse. 

Chase was, if possible, even less capable of tolerating opposition 
than Hobart was, and he had not the latter's personal charm with 
which to cover this intolerance. He had gone to England in spite 



of the opposition of most of his brother bishops, and when he 
started work upon his college he soon made it evident that he 
did not intend to pay much attention to anyone else's advice. 
Instead o founding the institution in a settled community, where 
local pride would have insured it some support, he built it in the 
wilderness on the theory that living would be cheaper there, and 
the students would be kept out of temptation, though in both 
respects he was disappointed. He caused the bishop to be made 
ex officio president of the College in its charter; he assumed a 
paternalistic attitude towards the faculty, most of whom w y ere, it 
is true, very young men, and he was very much opposed to any 
intervention from the board of trustees. It must be admitted that 
he had some justification for this attitude, since everyone was quite 
willing to let him do all of the work, and the College, in fact, 
received very little help from Ohio. He did, however, obtain 
increased help from the East after his visit to England, for Ho- 
bart's opposition had insured him the support of at least a portion 
of the Evangelicals. Benjamin Allen and Gregory Townsend 
Bedell, the rectors of St. Paul's and St. Andrew's churches in 
Philadelphia, and James Milnor, the rector of St. George's Church, 
New York, gave him especially cordial support in raising money 
for the College and in circulating a pamphlet of his called a Plea 
for the West -a title which was borrowed by Lyman Beecher 
some years later. 

Chase's absolutism caused a rebellion in 1831 on the part of the 
professors, who objected to the bishop's insistence on the right Rebellion of 
to exercise episcopal as well as presidential authority within the an ^ Q^* 
College, to veto all acts of the faculty, and even to direct their Resignation 
personal lives. They also disliked his policy of leaving the dis 
cipline of the College in charge of Mrs. Chase when he was 
away. When the trustees supported the faculty, Chase appealed 
to the diocesan convention, and when that body also failed him, 
he resigned both the presidency and his episcopal jurisdiction in 
Ohio, insisting that the two were inseparable. 

The convention, after a languid attempt to induce Chase to 
reconsider, accepted his resignation and elected Charles Pettit 
Mcllvaine to take his place. These proceedings gave rise to a 
lengthy debate at the General Convention which met the next 
year, and though the deputies finally agreed to recognize a de 


facto vacancy and sign McIIvaine's testimonials, they attached a 
clause to their resolution condemning Chase for "dereliction" in 
resigning. The Bishops, in agreeing to the consecration, expressed 
their disapproval of episcopal resignations in general, and a canon 
was finally passed requiring the consent of two-thirds of the 
diocese and of General Convention for such resignations. 

In spite of the ill feeling which he stirred up, Chase had always 
worked assiduously to promote the interests of his diocese, and 
thanks to this exertion and to the rapid growth in the population 
of the state, it was in a vigorous condition at the time of his resig 
nation. Under Mcllvaine, who was one of the outstanding preach 
ers of his day, an active growth continued and the diocese rapidly 
became a strong one, while its bishop became one of the most 
conspicuous leaders of the Evangelical party. After a short time, 
Mcllvaine had the same difficulties at Kenyon that Chase had 
had, but he held on, and eventually secured a settlement of the 
dispute which left him in substantial control of the College while 
relieving him of the active duties of the presidency. 

Chase, after leaving Ohio, went into Michigan, which was 
Chase in organized as a diocese shortly afterward, and admitted into union 

Illinois with the General Convention in 1832, the first case of a territory 

being so admitted. In 1835 he was elected Bishop of Illinois at its 
primary convention, and again he assumed the burdens of a 
pioneer bishop. He visited England a second time shortly after 
his election to raise funds for his new work, but with only moderate 
success. The diocese also received some help, though not much, 
from the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, and Chase 
himself was granted a salary by that body in 1836, but this action 
was held to be unconstitutional, because he was not subject to the 
Society's jurisdiction, and it was discontinued the year following. 
In 1839 Chase visited the South and succeeded in raising some 
money towards a second college which he proposed to found. It 
was not until 1847 that the institution was finally chartered, how 
ever, taking the name of Jubilee College. It was located in the 
center of a 3,000-acre tract o land and has recently been procured 
by the State of Illinois for preservation as a state park. 

The organization of a general missionary society was the most 
important single event in the history of the Episcopal Church in 
the early nineteenth century. This institution was organized by 
the General Convention in 1820, under the title of the Domestic 




of the 
Society, 1820 

and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church, a title which is still the legal designation of the missionary 
agency of the Church. The measure was the result of the interest 
and suggestions of many people, but one of the original sponsors 
of the movement was Bishop Griswold, who had published a 
charge and pastoral letter in 1816 advocating a greater interest in 
missionary work and noting the general revival of missionary 
interest among Protestants, and the work that was being done by 
the missionary societies of other denominations. Subsequently he 
had entered into a correspondence with the English Church Mis 
sionary Society, which was probably one of the reasons why that 
Society donated two hundred pounds to the American organiza 
tion shortly after it was started. 

The constitution of the new society provided at first for a con 
tributors' membership, as was customary in such societies at the 
time. A gift of three dollars made one an annual member, thirty 
dollars secured a life membership, and fifty dollars constituted the 
donor a "patron" with the privilege of a seat on the board of di 
rectors. This last provision was abandoned in a short time because 
the number of patrons increased so rapidly that the board became 
too cumbersome. The Presiding Bishop of the Church was ex 
officio president, making Bishop White the first person to hold 
this office, and all of the other bishops were ex officio vice-presi 
dents and directors. Twenty-four other directors were to be chosen 
by ballot at each triennial meeting. Among those who showed 
their interest in the missionary work of the Church by becoming 
"patrons" of the Society during the first three years of its life were 
the following clergymen whom we have already met in one place 
or another: Frederick Beasley, S. H. Turner, James Milnor, 
J. P. K. Henshaw, Jackson Kemper, and Benjamin Allen, and 
two laymen whom everyone knows: John Jay and Francis Scott 
Key. In the succeeding triennium four bishops, White, Griswold, 
R. C. Moore, and Brownell, added their names to the list. 

Though the interests of the Society, as its name suggests, were 
about equally divided between the domestic and the foreign field, Work in the 
and though the contributions to the two fields tended to be equal cst 
after the first few years, it was some time before the foreign pro 
gram could actually be undertaken, and a great many years before 
the foreign missions of the Church could be said to have progressed 


beyond their infancy. For the first half of its existence, at least the 
most important work of the Society was done in the domestic field, 
which generally meant the new territories of the West, though 
some missionaries were also sent to Maine and to the far South. 

At the time that the Society was organized there was, according 
to a statement made in the Ohio convention of 1820, no minister 
of the Episcopal Church in Indiana, Tennessee, Illinois, or Mis 
souri, and it is probahle that there was none in any of the organ 
ized territories either. Some beginning had been made, however, 
in Kentucky, and in Louisiana, where, as we have seen, Christ 
Church, New Orleans, was started under Philander Chase in 1805. 
After its organization was completed, the Society sent Amos G. 
Baldwin to investigate conditions in the West and see what could 
be done there. His explorations seem to have been confined to 
Kentucky, where he found a parish organized at Lexington, and 
one in process of organization at Paris, under the Rev. William 
Wall, who also officiated at Cynthiana and Georgetown. He him 
self, being delayed for some time at Washington, Kentucky, held 
service six times there and found a number of people who had 
been brought up in the Episcopal Church and were still at 
tached to it. 

In 1823 the Society sent the Rev. Melish I. Motte to St. Augus- 
Early Efforts tine, Florida, but he found the prospects so discouraging, and the 
expenses so great, that he returned in less than a year and left the 
service of the Society. In 1823 Henry H. Pfeiffer was sent to In 
diana, where he remained two years, and reported the existence of 
great spiritual necessities and an excellent opportunity for a mis 
sionary at Vincennes, During the same period, Thomas Horrel 
was sent to Jackson, Missouri, where he remained for a year and 
then went to St. Louis. A church had been organized here by a 
clergyman named Ward some years previously but had declined 
when Ward left at the end of eighteen months. Horrel soon re 
vived it and began raising money for a church building. He re 
mained at this post several years, developing a flourishing parish. 
When he came, St. Louis had a population of five or six thousand, 
and was growing rapidly. Richard F. Cadle was sent about the 
same time to Detroit, then numbering two thousand inhabitants, 
where he held services in the territorial council house by permis 
sion o Governor Cass. He found there a fairly large number of 


Churchmen, and built up a strong parish. Norman Nash was sent 
to establish a school at Green Bay, Wisconsin (then a part of 
Michigan Territory), where the Oncida Indians had recently been 
moved from New York. The project failed at that time, apparently 
because Nash laid his plans upon too large a scale. 

At the meeting of the Society in 1826 it was decided to extend 
aid to the dioceses of Ohio and Delaware and to count as mission Indian School 
stations all states and territories not yet organized into dioceses, 
Indian settlements not located in organized dioceses, and some 
place on the west coast of Africa to be selected by the executive 
committee. From 1826 to 1829 the Society made a second attempt 
to begin a mission in Florida, sending Addison Searle to Pensacola, 
Horatio N. Gray to Tallahassee, and Raymond A. Henderson to 
St. Augustine. The school at Green Bay was also revived under 
Cadle, who carried it on fairly successfully for a number of years, 
with government aid. In 1834, however, he got into trouble over 
an excessive bit of discipline administered to one of the boys, and 
though he was exonerated by the Society, after an investigation 
conducted by Kemper and Milnor, he resigned and returned for 
a time to parish work, but in a few years he was back with the 
Society and serving as itinerant in Wisconsin. In 1828 Bishop 
Hobart visited the Indians at Green Bay and, on his way, conse 
crated the church at Detroit and confirmed twelve. In 1830 Bishop 
Brownell made a visitation on behalf of the Society, covering 
parts of Ohio, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia and 
South Carolina, the apparently strange arrangement of the states 
being accounted for by the fact that he followed the water route 
down the Ohio and Mississippi and back along the Gulf of Mexico 
and the Atlantic Coast. He evidently made another visit to the 
South some years later, for his presence is recorded at the diocesan 
conventions of Alabama in July, 1834, and January, 1835. 

After the Society had been functioning long enough to acquire 
a definite policy, it adopted in the domestic sphere the rule, which Policies of the 
had been followed by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel Societ y 
in colonial times, of requiring some measure of local support for 
its missionaries, under ordinary circumstances, and of not contrib 
uting toward the building of churches, though, like all wisely 
managed organizations, it occasionally violated its own rules. It 
also followed the policy of trying to bring the total stipends of its 


missionaries up to five hundred dollars a year. This, though not 
lavish, represented a fairly adequate support at the time, and was 
more than was received by the rectors of some of the smaller set 
tled parishes. Living expenses in the West, however, for one who 
could not produce his own food, were generally higher than in the 
East and the work was harder, so that, as there was still a marked 
shortage of clergy to supply even the older parishes, the Society 
generally had more difficulty in finding men than in finding the 
money to pay them. As a rule missionaries were not sent to the 
actual frontier, but to the region behind it, where stable settlements 
had already begun to develop, and even there many splendid mis 
sionary opportunities had to be neglected for want of ministers. 
Had the Church been willing to lower drastically the educational 
requirements for its regular clergy, to make a more extensive use 
of lay workers, or to develop a system of itinerancy, its growth in 
the West would have been much more rapid and its present 
strength probably greater, but though there were some timid ges 
tures in that direction, no serious attempt to adapt the Church's 
system to the special needs of a rapidly growing country was ever 
made, and the constant calls of the western leaders for men were 
but feebly answered. 

In its earliest years the Society obtained its support mainly from 
Pennsylvania and South Carolina and, to a less extent, from the 
rest of the South and New England, for Hobart was not cordial 
towards its efforts to raise money in New York. His successor, 
however, was more friendly, and after 1830 New York took the 
lead, as it should have done, among the states supporting the 
Society, South Carolina being second. The total contributions in 
creased steadily and fairly rapidly, except during years of depres 
sion, until the middle of the century when partisan bitterness 
stirred up by the Oxford Movement and the Ritualistic contro 
versy caused a lessening of the Society's support. 

In 1835 the organization of the Society was completely remod- 

Reorganiza- eled, the new constitution providing that every member of the 

tion of the Episcopal Church should be regarded as a member of the Society, 

Society, 1835 w j lose a fj a j rs were henceforth to be controlled by a "Board of 

Missions," composed of all the bishops and thirty other members 

elected by the General Convention. This body was to function 

through two executive committees, one for domestic and one for 


foreign missions, and each committee was to employ a secretary 
and general agent at an adequate salary to raise money and man 
age its affairs generally. The most significant feature of this new 
arrangement, at least in principle, was the making of the Society 
co-extensive with the Church, but its practical importance has 
sometimes been exaggerated. Though the support of the Society 
increased after the arrangement, until checked by the depression 
of 1837-40, it had been increasing steadily before, and the rate of 
increase was not greatly accelerated. Some advance might, in any 
case, have been expected from the better organization of the 
Society's executive. 

The General Convention of 1835, besides approving of the above 
arrangement, passed a canon to provide for the election of "mis- "Missionary 
sionary bishops" at home and abroad. The reader who has fol- Bishops" 
lowed the labors of Hobart, Griswold, Chase, and their contempo- F vl c 
raries may feel that they, if anyone, should be entitled to the 
designation of "missionary bishops," but officially a bishop is a mis 
sionary only if he is elected by General Convention instead of the 
territory over which he has jurisdiction, and is supported by the 
general Missionary Society and subject to its control. Before 1835 
we had no bishops of this sort. The first two elected under the new 
canon were Francis Lister Hawks, who was to be Bishop of 
Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida, and Jackson Kemper, who was 
to be Bishop of Missouri and Indiana. Hawks declined, but 
Kemper accepted, and was consecrated on September 25, 1835. 

Before this time, bishops had been obtained in Kentucky and 
Tennessee by the regular process of diocesan election, Kentucky 
having chosen Benjamin Bosworth Smith to that office in 1832 
and Tennessee having named James Harvey Otey in 1833. In the 
following year an attempt had been made to unite the states of 
Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana as the "Southwestern Dio 
cese," in imitation of the Eastern Diocese, but the project was 
given up when the General Convention of 1835 repealed the canon 
authorizing it in favor of the scheme of electing missionary 

Jackson Kemper, whose consecration made him our first mis 
sionary bishop, in the official sense, was one of the most important Jackson 
figures in the early history of our Church in the West, and by 
his tireless labors he did much to supply the want of subordinate 


ministers. The official title of his jurisdiction gives a very inade 
quate idea of the extent of his activities. He subsequently added 
the supervision of Wisconsin to his other work, and he frequently 
made visitations in other states at the request of the Missionary 
Society or of his brother bishops. As we have seen, Kemper had 
served for years as assistant minister at Christ Church. He had 
resigned in 1831, however, and was rector of St. Paul's Church, 
Norwalk, Connecticut, at the time of his election. While at Phila 
delphia he had made a visit for the Society for the Advancement 
of Christianity in Pennsylvania to the western part of the state in 
1812, and had gone into western Virginia, where a meeting with 
the Dr. Doddridge previously mentioned had called his attention 
to needs farther west. He made another tour on behalf of the same 
organization in 1814, going as far as northern Ohio, and he accom 
panied Bishop White on his western visitation in 1826. In 1834, as 
we have seen, he went with James Milnor to settle the difficulties 
of the mission at Green Bay. 

Kemper went west shortly after his consecration, accompanied 
Bishop by the Rev. Samuel Roosevelt Johnson, who was to serve the 

Kcmpcr's Church for a number of years in Indiana, where, at the time, there 
Visitations was Qn jy Qne o ^ r m i ss ionary. Kemper himself became the rector 
of the church at St. Louis, securing the services of the Rev. Peter 
Minaud as assistant. He spent the winter of 1835 in Illinois, sup 
plying for Bishop Chase, who was in England. In 1837 he organ 
ized a college in Missouri to which his friends, in his absence, 
gave the name of Kemper College. Their action was unfortunate, 
for it caused the bishop to feel some embarrassment in appealing 
for funds for the institution. It was closed in 1845. In 1838 Kemper 
made a visitation of the states along the Mississippi, the Gulf, and 
the southern Atlantic Coast, as Bishop Brownell had done in 1830, 
though, as the number of stations had increased, Kemper's tour 
was probably more arduous. It had originally been projected in 
conjunction with Bishop Otey of Tennessee, but the latter was 
prevented by illness from going. 

Wisconsin, where Cadle had succeeded in opening a number of 
stations, had originally been attached to Michigan, but when 
Samuel Allen McCoskry was elected bishop for the latter state in 
1836, Wisconsin objected to his jurisdiction and asked to be placed 
under Kemper, a request which was eventually granted. Iowa was 



also added to his jurisdiction about this time, Dtibuque having 
previously been made a mission station at his suggestion. 

General Seminary, in its earlier years, was not very prolific in 
the number of graduates which it sent into the mission field, but Founding of 
after the^studeat body fell under the influence of the Oxford Move- 
ment in the late thirties, a stronger missionary spirit began to 
develop. In 1840 a number of students who had been influenced 
by this movement started discussing the possibility of organizing 
a semi-monastic group to carry on missionary work somewhere in 
the West under Kemper. Eventually four of them, James Warley 
Miles, William Adams, James Lloyd Breck, and John Henry 
Hobart, Jr., the son of Bishop Hobart, decided to go through with 
it, if their respective bishops would permit them to do so. Miles' 
bishop, Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina, would not, but 
the rest obtained the necessary permission, and in 1841 the three of 
them settled at Prairieville, now Waukesha, Wisconsin, where they 
built St. John's Church in the Wilderness. The next year they 
moved to Nashotah, Wisconsin, where land had been purchased 
for them. They were to be supported, to the extent of salaries of 
$250 apiece, by the Missionary Society, and Cadle at first con 
sented to become their "Superior." He resigned in a short time, 
however, and Breck was reluctantly forced to take command. 
Though they took no vows, and called their establishment an 
"associate mission," it was their intention to give it more or less 
of a monastic character. They were to wear a sort of habit and be 
under a rule of obedience, and it was expected that they would not 
marry while connected with the mission. They assumed respon 
sibility for the work of the Church in a large area about their 
mission which included several different races and types of settle 
ment, and, as an incidental feature of their work, they undertook 
the training of a few theological students. 

To one of them, Adams, the teaching program proved the only 
congenial feature of the work. He resigned from the mission in it Becomes a 
1843, and when he returned two years later it was with the under- 
standing that he was to serve as a teacher only. In 1848 he mar- 
ried Bishop Kemper's daughter, Elizabeth. So thoroughly did that 
young lady succeed in altering his principles that in 1850, when he 
published a textbook on moral theology entitled The Elements of 
Christian Science, he took the position that it was morally wrong 



not to marry. By 1850 Hobart had also withdrawn from the mis 
sion and it had so far lost its original character that Breck, who 
alone still cherished the early ideal, resigned and went with two 
young followers to found a similar station in Minnesota, where 
Ezekiel G. Gear was then the only Episcopal minister. Nasho- 
tah passed under the control o the Rev. Azel D. Cole, Adams 
being unwilling to assume executive responsibility, and under the 
two of them it developed into an educational institution pure and 
simple. Breck himself, incidentally, married twice in the course of 
his later career. 

Kemper was relieved of his jurisdiction in Missouri in 1844 
Othcr when Cicero Stephen Hawks was elected bishop of that state. In 

" 1849 Geor U P fold bcame Bish P f Indiana. Kemper, however, 

had by then taken over the care of Minnesota and in 1856 he was 
given jurisdiction over Kansas. In 1859 he resigned his missionary 
jurisdiction because of age, but remained Bishop of Wisconsin, 
which had become an independent diocese, until his death in 1870. 
In 1859 Henry Benjamin Whipple was elected Bishop of Minne 
sota and the unorganized area of the West was divided into two 
missionary jurisdictions, one of the Northwest and one of the 
Southwest. Joseph Cruikshank Talbot became bishop of the 
former and Henry Champlin Lay of the latter. Talbot, whose 
jurisdiction included several million square miles, used to refer 
to himself, with some justification, as "Bishop of All Outdoors." 
While Kemper was carrying on his extensive work in the 
Northwest, the Southwest was by no means neglected. In 1838 
Leonidas Polk was elected Missionary Bishop of Arkansas, with 
the proviso that he should perform episcopal functions in other 
vacant southern dioceses also. In 1841 he became Bishop of Loui 
siana. In 1844 Nicholas Hamner Cobbs was elected Bishop of 
Alabama, and George W. Freeman was appointed by the General 
Convention to be Bishop of Arkansas and to exercise jurisdiction 
over the Indian Territory (where, however, we had no mission 
aries) and the Republic of Texas. Freeman was subsequently given 
a general jurisdiction for the Southwest. Francis L. Hawks was 
also elected Bishop of Mississippi in 1844, having gone to that 
state to escape prosecution by his creditors in New York. Charges 
arising out of his financial embarrassments, which were the result 
of the failure of a boys' school he had founded, were interposed 



to prevent his consecration, and, though the Deputies declared him 
exonerated, they referred the matter back to the diocesan conven 
tion for further action. Before that was taken, Hawks declared 
that he would not accept the election anyway, and Mississippi did 
not finally obtain a bishop until 1850 when William Mercer Green 
was elected. Texas, which had become a state in the meantime, was 
admitted into union with General Convention in the same year. 

Breck, after he went into Minnesota, established an associate 
mission on a larger scale than Nashotah, having at one time 
twelve co-workers of both sexes. He still had trouble with the 
propensity of his colleagues for marriage and eventually, as has 
been mentioned, succumbed to that temptation, himself. His 
mission, which had its headquarters at Christ Church, St. Paul, 
served a large part of the state and was largely responsible for 
building up the Church there. Breck founded two branch missions 
among the Chippeway Indians and took personal charge of this 
part of the work himself, leaving the white mission under the di 
rection of Dr. van Ingen. In 1857 he began the foundation of a 
theological seminary at Faribault, which he named for Bishop 
Seabury. This institution proved successful and continued at Fari- 
bault until a short time ago when it was merged with the Western 
Theological Seminary and moved to Evanston, Illinois. 

Missionary work was begun in California in 1850, the year that 
it became a state, the Rev. Dr. J. L. H. Ver Mehr being sent to 
San Francisco, where he founded Grace Church. In 1853 Califor 
nia applied for admission to General Convention, but as it had 
failed to ratify the General Constitution its petition could not be 
granted. The House of Deputies did, however, recommend the 
appointment of a bishop and several presbyters for the state, which, 
though capable of self-support, had difficulty in obtaining men. 
In accordance with this suggestion, William Ingraham Kip was 
elected by the upper house and duly consecrated for the post. Five 
missionaries, in addition to the one already there, were sent 
to help him within the next two years. In 1867 he was joined by 
Breck, who went to the Coast in that year to found his third asso 
ciate mission. In 1853 a bishop, Thomas F. Scott, had also been 
sent to Oregon Territory, which then included the present state 
of Oregon and a large part of Idaho. Two presbyters were sent to 
work under him. 

Breck in 




The increasing number of young men under the influence of the 
Theological Oxford Movement who went into the domestic mission field, and 
the refusal of the Society or its bishops to discriminate against 
them, cost it in some measure the support of the Evangelicals, 
who were angered when they found the western deputies voting 
with the Anglo-Catholics at the General Convention of 1847. At 
the next Convention, 1850, the committee on the Missionary Soci 
ety reported an alarming decline in receipts, and in 1851 some 
Evangelicals at Philadelphia organized The Missionary Society 
for the West, which was to raise money that should be spent 
through the Domestic Committee but with the contributing society 
reserving the privilege to say on whom or how it should be spent. 
In 1859 a still more radical measure was undertaken with the 
organization of the American Church Missionary Society, which 
proposed to carry on work entirely under its own direction, both 
at home and abroad. One incidental result of its activities was the 
commencement of our work in Latin America. It was named in 
imitation of the English Church Missionary Society, which had 
generally been under Evangelical control. After the strife of par 
ties had begun to subside, it became an auxiliary of the Domestic 
and Foreign Missionary Society. 

It was inevitable that the foreign missionary work of the Church 
should grow much more slowly than the domestic. The domestic 
work was carried on in a rapidly growing section, among Chris 
tians of our own race, and, for the most part, in communities 
where there were at least some Episcopalians to provide a certain 
amount of local support from the start. In the foreign field every 
thing had to be begun by the Society. 

It was, in fact, some time before the foreign work could be got 
Greece under way at all. Shortly after its organization the Society pro 

jected a mission to Africa, where the American Colonization 
Society was settling such negroes as its philanthropic supporters 
were able to bring out of slavery, but various circumstances forced 
the repeated postponement of the enterprise, and in the end our 
first foreign missionaries were sent, not to Africa, but to Greece. 
The revolt of that country from the Turkish Empire, which led 
to its independence in 1829, had excited the sympathy of the 
whole Western World, and of our young republic in particular, 
and this sympathy led the Rev. John J. Robertson to volunteer for 

The Foreign 



service there. His object, of course, was not to convert the Greeks, 
who were Christians already, but to provide them with opportu 
nities for education which their long subjection and present pov 
erty had prevented. He founded a school at Smyrna, where he was 
joined two years later by the Rev. J. H. Hill and wife, and an 
other clergyman. The school was subsequently moved to Athens, 
where it was continued, under the Hills and their successors, for 
many years, winning expressions of gratitude from the leaders of 
the Greek people. 

The African mission was at last started in 1835 when James M. 
Thomson, a negro, was appointed as the first Episcopal mis- Africa 
sionary. He was not in orders and served only as a teacher, though 
a parish had been organized by the Episcopalian residents of 
Monrovia the year before his coming. He died in 1838, but his 
wife remained in the employ of the Society until her death in 
1864. In 1836 the Rev. Thomas S. Savage, M.D., was sent out, 
and remained in Africa for ten years, then returning to the United 
States to enter parish work. With him in the same year went the 
Rev. John Payne, who, in 1851, was consecrated first Bishop of 
Liberia, or, as his title originally read, of West Africa. He was 
supported by a number of other workers. 

Our next foreign field was China, which was just then coming 
within the orbit of expanding Europe. Our first missionaries there, China 
the Rev. Henry Lockwood and the Rev. Francis R. Hanson, were 
appointed in 1835, but they were requested to spend six months in 
the study of medicine before leaving for their stations. They went 
first to Canton, but later moved to Batavia, in Java, where there 
seemed to be better opportunities of doing useful work while learn 
ing the Chinese language. Hanson left the mission in 1837 and 
Lockwood in 1839. The Rev. William J. Boone had been sent to 
join the missionaries at Batavia in 1837 and in 1840 he moved the 
mission back to China. In 1844 he was consecrated bishop, being 
the first bishop consecrated for strictly foreign missionary service 
within the Anglican communion. In 1845 he settled the mission 
at Shanghai, where he was joined by the Rev. Cleveland Keith in 
1851, by the Rev. Robert Nelson in 1852, and by the Rev. C. M. 
Williams and the Rev. John Liggins in 1856. In 1859 the last two 
were sent as the first Protestant missionaries to Japan. Liggins was 
soon forced to leave because of ill health, but Williams continued 



The Indians 

and became first Bishop of Japan in 1866. In 1859 Boone was 
joined by the Rev. S. I. J. Schereschewsky, who devoted himself 
for many years to translating the Bible into Chinese. 

With the consecration of Bishop Boone and Bishop Payne, the 
work in the two largest of our early mission fields may be said 
to have gotten fairly under way. The effort which started that 
work was a phase of the general revival of missionary interest 
among, Protestants which marked the early nineteenth century. 
This revival was partly the result of a growing sense of spiritual 
responsibility and partly of the general urge for the spreading of 
European culture which characterized the century. There was 
about all of the early work, probably, something of the spirit of 
"From Greenland's Icy Mountains," but the smugness of the early 
missionaries and their sponsors is often exaggerated. The instruc 
tions provided for the first missionaries to China, furnished by 
Bishop White, and the instructions supplied to Bishop Boone by 
Bishop Meade reminded them that they were going to a civilized 
country and stressed the importance of an appreciative attitude 
toward Chinese culture. 

An attempt was also made at this period to establish a mission 
in Persia, then as now under Mohammedan control. The Rev. 
Horatio Southgate was sent there in 1835 to explore the field and 
continued at the work for some years. In 1844 he was consecrated 
bishop at the same time as Boone, an unwise move, since the 
Christians in Persia were under the jurisdiction of Orthodox 
bishops. He resigned in a few years because of disagreements with 
the Society and returned to America where he became rector of 
the Church of the Advent, Boston, one of the early centers of 
Anglo-Catholicism in this country. A mission was also started in 
Crete, but it was short-lived. 

There was only a very slight amount of work done by the 
Church among the American Indians at this period. The work 
among the Oneidas in New York, which had been interrupted by 
the Revolution, was vigorously revived under Hobart, and Eleazer 
Williams, who was himself part Indian, being descended from a 
white woman who was captured in an Indian raid in colonial 
times and married to her captor, was sent to take charge of it, first 
as catechist and then as presbyter. He went with the Indians to 
Wisconsin and continued to work among them until someone 


persuaded him that it would be more profitable to capitalize his 
striking facial resemblance to the Bourbons by posing as the Lost 
Dauphin. Thereafter the work had to be carried on by less roman 
tic characters. We have already traced, in part, the fortunes of the 
school at Green Bay. It was at length abandoned, but a mission was 
kept up at the Duck Creek Reservation, near Green Bay, under 
the Rev. Solomon Davis, whose faithful labors extended over 
many years. This was our only Indian mission until Breck began 
his work among the Chippeways. 

Work among the negroes was carried on more extensively and 
successfully, but not, for the most part, under the Missionary The Negroes 
Society, though the Domestic Committee did set up a special fund 
for their benefit. Most of the work was done in the organized 
dioceses and by regular ministers, though special negro churches 
were organized in Philadelphia, New York, and some other north 
ern cities, and some free negroes were ordained to the priesthood. 
All of the southern bishops laid stress on work among the negroes, 
and most of the southern rectors engaged in it. The prejudices 
against the conversion of this race which had prevailed in colonial 
times died out in the nineteenth century when it began to be dis 
covered that Christian slaves were more docile than others. The 
Episcopal Church had fair success among the negroes on the 
plantations, where the masters could supervise their religious life, 
but in the towns, where they had more opportunity to choose their 
own churches, they generally preferred other denominations. By 
the middle of the century most of the negroes had been converted 
by some denomination or other and the defenders of slavery began 
to describe that institution as one of the greatest missionary enter 
prises of the age. 




CHURCHMAN o today, even if he came from a parish 
Changes in which was fairly conservative in the matter of ritual and ornament, 
the Church would probably feel scarcely more at home in a church of his own 
communion at the beginning of the nineteenth century than he 
would in one of another denomination. The actual service of the 
Prayer Book would be familiar, for, though it has been altered, the 
changes have not been fundamental, but in nearly all of the things 
which gave it its setting he would see a difference. The furnishings 
of the church would be different, as one can see for himself if he 
goes into one of the old churches which have been kept as they 
were a century or more ago. There would be no altar with solid 
sides, designed to resemble stone, even when it is not built of stone. 
In its place, there would be a communion table, with recognizable 
legs, and this, moreover, would not be placed squarely against the 
"east" end of the church, as the altar is, but would be at least suf 
ficiently removed so that the priest could stand behind it and face 
the congregation while celebrating. It would have no colored 
"hangings," but only the "fair linen cloth" required by the rubric. 
There would be no candles and no cross or crucifix. The pulpit 
would probably be more prominent than at present, and might 
even hide the communion table. 

When the service began, no vested choir would come marching 
in. If there were a choir of any sort, it would be up in the gallery 
out of sight. The only vestments worn by the priest would be a 
long, white surplice while officiating, and a black gown while 
preaching. Before ascending the pulpit, he would probably dis 
appear behind a screen somewhere to change from one of these 
garments to the other. It would be much less likely that the service 
one happened to attend was the Eucharist, because that was less 



often celebrated. If it was, it would be celebrated with the least 
possible ceremonial by the priest facing the congregation. 

These differences, which would go so far towards making the 
familiar service unfamiliar, are the direct, though incidental, result Effects o & c 
of the work performed by a group of young scholars, and one older Oxford 
one, at Oxford University in the eighteen thirties. It was not the Movement 
primary object of these men to introduce changes in ceremonial. 
In the beginning it was not their object to introduce such changes 
at all. But the changes came about as the result of the Movement 
which those men started, and they are the consequences of that 
Movement which present themselves most conspicuously to the 
average layman. They also serve to symbolize it in another way, 
for, just as they have affected the usages of many Episcopal 
churches that are in no way associated with it, so there are many 
Churchmen who would not care to be considered its followers 
but who, nevertheless, think differently about the Church and its 
teaching than they would if the changes had not occurred. On the 
other hand, just as there are many professed followers of the 
Movement today who use ceremonial of which its founders never 
dreamed, so there are many such persons who hold theological 
opinions quite different from those originally maintained by the 
school, either because they have gone much further in the direc 
tion in which it first started, or because, while retaining something 
of its basic position, they have adopted many ideas originally put 
forward by other groups. In other words, the Oxford Movement 
has so thoroughly permeated the life of our Church, and has in 
fluenced and been influenced by other tendencies and forces to 
such a degree, that the extent of its influence can no longer be 
measured by the use of the party names associated with it. 

The Movement is generally regarded as having originated in a 
plea for a more pronounced Churchmanship made by John Keble, rhc TracU 
a Fellow of Oxford, in a sermon which he preached at the opening -for the Times 
of the Assize in 1833, but it found its most important expression in 
a series of pamphlets called Tracts for the Times which were writ 
ten by Keble and some of his associates in that and the years fol 
lowing. The principal authors of these papers, besides Keble, were 
Hurrell Froude, who died in 1836, when the movement was still 
in its infancy; Edward Bouverie Pusey, a Professor in Oxford, 
older than the other -writers and already a distinguished scholar; 


and John Henry Newman, who rapidly became the leader of the 
group, and who wrote the most striking of the tracts. 

English Churchmanship at this time was in a rather decayed 
condition. The reviving influence exerted by Hobart upon Amer 
ican High Churchmanship had not extended to the Old World, 
and the party in England had lost a good deal of its original vigor. 
Evangelicalism, though less decadent, had also lost some of its 
early fire, and, in any case, it was not disposed to lay much empha 
sis upon the distinctive claims of the Church. As a result of this 
lassitude, there was serious talk of disestablishment, and it was 
felt that only a vigorous restatement of Church principles could 
avert this threat. 

This was the original object of the Tracts., and, in fact, the earlier 
The Tracta- numbers of the series were merely a restatement of the position of 
rian Position seventeenth-century High Churchmanship, but as the discussion 
progressed, some of the writers, and especially Newman, began to 
go beyond this position. Newman was evidently moving towards 
that theory of development in religious belief which was to become 
the theme of one of his best-known works, and this led him into 
a gradually increasing emphasis upon the tradition of the Catholic 
Church until he finally reached the conclusion that the Bible could 
be properly interpreted only in the light of this tradition. Such a 
position was obviously in conflict with the principle of the suffi 
ciency and self-interpretative quality of Scripture which, if any 
doctrine can be so called, was the fundamental tenet of the Refor 
mation and had hitherto been accepted, at least tacitly, by High 
Churchman as well as Low. If the Tractarian view, which was 
simply the traditional Catholic view, was to be accepted instead of 
the Protestant one, it was obvious that a complete reappraisal of 
the position of the Anglican communion would be called for. The 
tendency of the Reformation, and of the churches which were 
subjected to it, was to dismiss the centuries which had intervened 
since the close of the Scriptural Revelation as centuries of growing 
corruption, from which Christianity, or a part of it, had been 
purified by the Protestant Revolt. Actually, most of the older 
Protestant denominations accepted the results of Christian devel 
opment up to Nicea, but they believed they did so only because the 
Nicene theology could be proved from the Bible. If, however, 
Anglicans were again to accept the theory that tradition was the 



key to Scripture, it was obvious that ages of Christian thought 
which had previously been contemptuously slighted must be re 
spectfully reconsidered, and that much which had been dismissed 
as corruption might have to be regarded as legitimate development. 
In Tract Thirty-eight, which was in the form of a philosophic 
dialogue, Newman made his protagonist say, "I receive the Church 
as a messenger from Christ, rich in treasures old and new, rich 
with the accumulated wealth of ages. ... As I will not consent to 
be deprived of the records of the Reformation, so neither will I 
part with those of former times." The full implications of this 
statement were not developed in that tract, nor, indeed, in any of 
them, but the hint was significant of things to come. 

While,, however, it is probably correct to regard this view of the 
importance of tradition as being the root of most of the later de- Evangelical 
velopments of the movement, it was not the point upon which the Opposition 
early controversy concerning the Tracts was waged most bitterly. 
Even the earlier numbers had caused a good deal of uneasiness 
among the Evangelicals and when, as the series continued, the 
writers began to speak of the need for a "second Reformation," 
to wave aside "the prejudice which has been excited in the minds 
of Protestants against the principle ... of anathematizing," to 
hold that the Tridentine doctrine of Purgatory might be within 
the bounds of permissible opinion, and to reproduce a large part 
of the Roman Breviary with the comment that "There is so much 
of excellence and beauty in the services of the Breviary that, were 
it skilfully set before the Protestant by Roman controversialists as 
the book of devotions received in their communion, it would un 
doubtedly raise a prejudice in their favor," many of the older High 
Churchmen also began to feel a trifle nervous. Even the statement 
of the Tractarians that their purpose was to claim "whatever 
is good and true in those Devotions . . . for the Church Cath 
olic" did not prove entirely reassuring. 

It was not, however, until the publication of Tract Ninety that 
the storm actually broke and it became evident that what had gone Tract 
before was but a premonitory rumbling. This Tract, which was Ninety 
written by Newman, was an attempt to show that the Catholic 
position, as it had been developed among the Tractarians, was 
sanctioned by the Thirty-Nine Articles. These Articles have been 
so badly battered in the years since this pamphlet was written that 


it is difficult to understand the respect with which they were then 
generally regarded. At the time of the organization of the Epis 
copal Church in this country, Bishop White and some others had, 
it is true, thought that it would be a good idea to revise them, but 
the majority had not shared this opinion and they had, after a few 
years, been adopted with but slight alteration. Generally speaking, 
both High and Low Churchmen felt that the Articles gave a suf 
ficient sanction to their respective positions, as, indeed, they prob 
ably did, and were much attached to them. In England, all clergy 
men were, and still are, required to sign them at their ordination. 
When Newman tried to put his new wine into these old bottles, 
it seemed to many that he was straining them to the breaking 
point. They objected especially to his contention that the Articles 
did not condemn all % doctrines of purgatory, that they gave no 
sanction to the right of private judgment in interpreting Scripture, 
and that they left one free to believe in the infallibility of some 
kinds of general councils. Above all, his opponents, and especially 
the Evangelicals, objected to his insistence that good works might 
have a role, even if a minor one, in our justification, a view, in 
deed, which Newman could reconcile with the Articles only by 
ignoring the first half of Article XL Justification by faith only had 
been one of the great watchwords of the Reformation, and it lay at 
the very root of the Evangelical system. It was, therefore, at the 
rejection of this doctrine that the Evangelicals leveled their heaviest 

As a result of the furor aroused by this Tract, the publication of 
Spread of the the series was stopped and Newman retired for a period of reflec- 
Movement tion which finally led him into the Roman Catholic Church. The 
Movement, however, continued, and spread throughout the Angli 
can communion under various titles of which the most common 
were "The Oxford Movement," "Tractarianism," and "Pusey- 
ism." Like all things Anglican, the Movement was never sharply 
defined, and there was no specific statement of principles to which 
all of its adherents felt obliged to give assent. Proceeding, how 
ever, from the basic principle of Catholic tradition as the true 
interpreter of Scripture, it developed certain features which served 
to mark it off as a distinct party, though there was a good deal of 
shading along the margins, and in time many people came to 




approve certain features of the Movement without accepting its 
whole program. 

Most of the adherents of the Movement agreed to define Cath 
olic tradition, in the terms of the famous "canon" of St. Vincent 
de Lerins, as that which had been believed "everywhere, always 
and by all/' and for practical purposes they interpreted this as 
referring to the generally received tradition of the Christian 
Church before the division of East and West. They regarded the 
seven General Councils, held before that division, as being infal 
lible insofar as they expressed the general tradition. The legiti 
mate heirs of the undivided Church, they thought, were the three 
great communions, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Angli 
can, and some minor groups which, like these three, had main 
tained the succession of bishops without interruption and remained 
substantially orthodox in doctrine. Such religious bodies they re 
garded as being branches of the one Catholic Church, and through 
their insistence upon the right of the Anglican Communion to be 
called "Catholic" in this sense, they acquired the designation of 
"Anglo-Catholic," which in time became the title most commonly 
applied to them. The application of the adjective "Catholic" to the 
Church of England was not a new thing, but it had not previously 
been used so often, nor had it, since the Reformation, been 
applied in a sense that was definitely antithetical to "Protestant." 

Most of the Anglo-Catholics, though there were some excep 
tions, did not regard as necessary of belief any doctrine which 
could not be shown to have obtained general acceptance before 
the division of the Church, and ordinarily they regarded its af 
firmation by a General Council as the best test of such acceptance. 
Some of them, however, were disposed to regard doctrines which 
had developed in the Western Church during the Middle Ages, 
such as the belief in purgatory and the Immaculate Conception of 
the Virgin Mary, as falling within the bounds of permissible 
opinion which the pious were justified in accepting if it appealed 
to them. 

In regard to religious institutions and ceremonies, the Anglo- 
Catholics early showed a strong tendency to return to the customs Usages and 
of the Middle Ages. The Movement had not been long under way Ceremonies 
before proposals began to be made for the revival of monasticism, 
and, though it was a long time before a successful order was 


actually founded, experiments in that direction were constantly 
being made. The first leaders of the party were opposed to intro 
ducing actual changes in ceremonial, partly because they realized 
that this would increase the bitterness of the opposition, and pardy 
because they feared that any proposals for liturgical revision would 
give the Evangelicals an opportunity to demand changes in the 
opposite direction. They showed themselves, however, as in their 
publication of the Breviary, sympathetic to many liturgical cus 
toms of the Middle Ages which had been rejected at the Reforma 
tion. When, in the next generation, some of the bolder spirits of 
the party began to translate these sympathies into action, the op 
position to the Movement was, as the older leaders had foreseen, 
both intensified and extended, for the ritual changes which resulted 
brought the implications of the Movement home to many, espe 
cially of the laity, by whom its theological position had been but 
little considered. Even at the beginning, the Tractarians intro 
duced some changes in the internal arrangements of the churches, 
such as placing the altar against the east wall and reducing the 
conspicuousness of the pulpit, but these were, in any case, a natural 
corollary of the revival of Gothic architecture for the external 
construction of the churches. 

The revival of interest in and respect for mediaeval usages were 
Cultural natural consequences of the emphasis of the Anglo-Catholics 

Overtones upon the continuous tradition of the Church, but it also fitted in 
with the general interest in the Middle Ages that was one of the 
features of nineteenth-century culture, and which had already 
shown itself in literature, through the Romantic Movement, and 
in architecture, through the Gothic Revival. In the field of history, 
or, at least, of pseudo-history, this interest was to be forced into 
an unnatural union with nationalism and democracy, and issue 
in what may be called the Anglo-Saxon Legend, or the theory 
that the democratic institutions of modern England were the result 
of the triumph of a supposedly primitive Anglo-Saxon democracy 
in its long struggle with foreign oppression as represented by the 
Normans. Under more or less Anglo-Catholic auspices a corre 
sponding theory developed in Church history which represented 
the Church of England as having been from early times a distinct 
branch of the Church Catholic, deriving its origin from the un 
divided Church of primitive times, but properly independent in 



its own sphere and subjected for a time to the supremacy of the 
Popes only through the pusillanimity o its rulers. On this theory, 
the Henrician Reformation became simply a proper declaration 
of the Church's independence of Rome, and the more Protestant 
tendencies displayed in the later stages of the revolt were attrib 
uted to the influence of foreign reformers. 

One of the most important practical consequences of the Oxford 
Movement was the renewed vitality and fresh direction which it Devotional 
gave to the devotional life of that portion of the Church which was Life 
affected by it. Following the general tendency of their party, the 
Anglo-Catholics revived the traditional classification of the Seven 
Sacraments, and insisted that the devotions of Churchmen should 
be centered around these rites. They emphasized, even more than 
older High Churchmen, the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, 
and in their view of the Eucharist they tended to express a strong 
belief in the Real Presence, sometimes even approaching the 
Roman Catholic theory of Transubstantiation. They celebrated 
the Communion much more often than had been customary, and 
gave it a larger place in their religious life. Of the remaining five 
sacraments, three, Confirmation, Matrimony, and Orders, had been 
in constant use without being called sacraments. The other two, 
Penance, in the form of auricular confession, and Holy Unction 
were both revived sooner or later. 

As a result of this program, a rich devotional life developed 
among the followers of the Movement, and a spirit of religious 
service showed itself which led many ministers to go into fields 
that the older High Churchmen had generally neglected. In Eng 
land they went into the cities to do religious work among the poor. 
In this country many of their young men went to work in the 
West, where previously the Evangelicals had supplied most of the 

In recent years new forces have begun to operate within the 
fold of Anglo-Catholicism, and new tendencies have developed. 
A "Liberal Catholic" movement has grown up which is only just 
becoming articulate, and there are probably many Anglo-Catholics 
not identified with this new group who have, nevertheless, been 
more or less influenced by some aspects of Liberalism. There is 
also a growing section of the party which is interested in the social 
implications of Catholicism. To these modern Anglo-Catholics 



the foregoing description is only partially applicable, but it is be 
lieved to give a fairly accurate representation of the older phases of 
the movement. As has been said before, however, it must be remem 
bered that the party has never produced any definite formularies 
accepted by all its adherents, and there have always been many 
along its fringes who accepted only part of its program. There have 
also been extremists on the other side who, shirking the consider 
able exercise of scholarship which was necessary to work out a 
distinctly Anglican position, have followed the easier course of 
simply adopting all of Roman Catholicism except the Pope, but 
these have been important merely as they seemed to give color to 
the charges of its opponents that Anglo-Catholicism was "Roman 
ism" in disguise. 

In this country the controversy resulting from the Oxford Move- 
The Move- ment did not assume reat proportions until 1843, or about two 
mcntin years after the publication of Tract Ninety. While the Tracts were 

America st |jj ^ t ' m g published some discussion pro and con appeared in the 

Church papers and other mediums, but the general tendency of 
those in positions of responsibility was to minimize the controversy 
as much as possible. The Tracts did, however, win some followers 
among the students of General Theological Seminary, which be 
came the earliest, and remained for a long time, the most impor 
tant center of Anglo-Catholicism in this country. Most of the 
faculty, at this time, kept aloof from the Movement, but one of 
the younger professors, the Rev. William Rollinson Whittingham, 
who taught Ecclesiastical History, became an early convert, and, 
as he enjoyed the popularity which belongs by right to the newest 
member of any faculty, he soon had a number of followers among 
the students. When these rhen graduated and went into parishes, 
they naturally began to impress their views on those around them. 
In 1839, Bishop Henry Onderdonk observed with gratification the 
placing of a cross on the spire of St. Paul's Church, Washington 
County, Pennsylvania, and in 1841 Bishop Griswold noted with 
different sentiments certain alterations in the internal arrange 
ments of Grace Church, Providence, and the church at Nantucket, 
which he regarded as reminiscent of the Dark Ages. In the fol 
lowing year, he complained that Nantucket had become even 
worse, though he praised the unanimity of the people, and their 
efforts to pay off the parish debt. 1841, as we have seen, was the 



The Carey 

year in which Nashotah was organized under definitely Anglo- opposition to 
Catholic auspices. In the same year Bishop Mcllvaine published a It 
book called Oxford Divinity Corn fared with that of the Romish 
and Anglican Churches, in which, while acquitting the Tractarians 
of any deliberate intention of "Romanizing" the Church of Eng 
land, he contended that this was the inevitable tendency o their 
teaching, basing his argument chiefly upon their willingness to 
admit "good works" into the scheme of salvation. Nevertheless, 
when J. P. K. Henshaw, shortly to become Bishop of Rhode 
Island, published his memoirs of Bishop R. C. Moore, in 1842, 
he was able to say, "The excitement of the Tract controversy is 
now rapidly subsiding." 

A few months sufficed to show the premature character of this 
prophecy. Dr. Whittingham had been elected Bishop of Maryland 
in 1840, and had accordingly left General Seminary but his suc 
cessor, the Rev. John D. Ogilby, held substantially the same posi 
tion as Whittingham, and the interest of the students in the Ox 
ford Movement tended to increase rather than diminish. This 
interest was, from the first, regarded with a certain amount of 
suspicion by the ecclesiastical authorities of the Church. Bishop 
Henry Onderdonk, for instance, though he was more or less sym 
pathetic to Tractarianism, felt obliged, before ordaining James 
Lloyd Breck, to question him for three and a quarter hours con 
cerning his views, and this quizz was followed by a session of an 
hour and a half with one of the presbyters of the diocese. With 
the ordination of Arthur Carey in the diocese of New York in 
1843, a definite crisis developed. Carey, whose brilliance, earnest 
ness, and charm were acknowledged even by his bitterest oppo 
nents, had been a leader among the Tractarian students at General 
Seminary, and came to accept some of the most advanced views of 
his party. He had been associated, while at the Seminary, with St. 
Peter's Church, New York City, whose rector, the Rev. Hugh 
Smith, though aware of his sympathy with the Oxford theology, 
thought highly of him and was glad to have him as a teacher in 
his Sunday school. 

Before the final signing of Carey's testimonials, however, Dr. 
Smith heard reports which led him to believe that the young man's 
opinions were more extreme than he thought. He accordingly had 
a long conversation with the candidate, in the course of which he 


elicited the information that, should he be denied admission to 
our ministry, Carey might possibly enter that of the Roman 
Catholic Church, though in the present state of his views he 
thought it unlikely; that he did not regard the differences between 
the two communions as embracing any "points of faith" in the 
technical sense of that phrase; that he was not prepared to pro 
nounce the doctrine of Transubstantiation absurd or impossible, 
but regarded it "as taught within the last hundred years as possibly 
meaning no more than what we mean by the Real Presence, which 
we most assuredly hold"; that he did not feel sure the Tridentine 
doctrine of purgatory was entirely untenable, though he did re 
ject the doctrine as popularly received in the Roman communion; 
that he was not prepared to say that the Church of Rome was no 
longer "an integral or pure branch of the Church of Christ," or 
to say whether she or the Anglican Church was at present more 
pure; that, while he objected to the practice of withholding the 
Cup from the laity, he did not regard it as invalidating the 
Roman Catholic Eucharist; that he regarded many features of the 
English Reformation as unjustifiable, though he admitted that 
some reformation was then necessary; that, while he would not 
himself undertake to prove doctrine from passages in the Apoc 
rypha, he could not condemn the Roman Catholic Church for 
calling it Holy Scripture; and that he did not consider the promise 
of conformity in the Ordination service as committing him to an 
acceptance of the Thirty-Nine Articles. 

As a result of this conversation, Dr. Smith refused to sign 
Protested by Carey's testimonials and presented a statement of his reasons for 
Smith and refusing to Bishop Benjamin Onderdonk. He also consulted his 
Amhon rierfdj the Rev Hemy Anthon? the rector o St> Mark > s Church, 

who agreed with him as to the propriety of his conduct. Carey, 
however, obtained the necessary testimonials from the Rev. Wil 
liam Berrian, rector of Trinity Church. Bishop Onderdonk then 
asked Doctors Smith and Anthon to assist at an examination of 
Carey before himself and six of the leading presbyters of the dio 
cese, including, besides Berrian, John McVickar, a professor at 
Columbia College, Samuel Seabury (a grandson of Bishop Sea- 
bury), editor of The Churchman, Joseph H. Price, rector of St. 
Stephen's Church, Benjamin I. Haight, rector of All Saints' 
Church and a professor at General, and another New York rector, 


Edward Y. Higbee. The examination, though long and pain 
ful, being conducted chiefly by the two protestors, did not elicit 
anything as to Carey's opinions not already known. When it was 
over, Bishop Onderdonk asked each of the presbyters individually 
for his opinion. Smith and Anthon, of course, were dissatisfied, 
but all of the others expressed the opinion that the candidate's 
answers were satisfactory. The Bishop reserved decision for a time, 
during which he considered a further protest from Smith and 
Anthon, but he finally decided to go through with the ordination. 

After so thorough a hearing had been given to the charges 
against Carey, and the question had been decided by the only 
person who had any authority to do so, it might be supposed 
that the matter would have been allowed to drop, but the two 
accusers thought it their duty to read a formal protest during the 
Ordination service. When they had done so, the Bishop replied 
that, as the matter had already been adjudicated, he would pro 
ceed with the ordination, which he did. All parties to the pro 
ceedings subsequently sought to justify themselves, and before the 
storm had subsided Carey was dead. His health had never been 
vigorous, and he died while on a voyage to Havana, where he had 
gone in hope of recuperation. 

The excitement caused by the Carey case served to heighten the 
popular suspicion that General Seminary was rapidly becoming General 
a Roman Catholic mission. To satisfy Doctors Smith and Anthon, Seminary 
some special questions, designed to detect any subversive tenden- Investl s ated 
cies, had been introduced into the examination of the senior class, 
for though Carey had graduated the year before, there were other 
suspects in the class, especially one B. B. J. McMaster, who sub 
sequently did become a Roman Catholic. The Board of Trustees 
also appointed a committee to investigate the condition of the 
Seminary, and, on hearing its report, voted twenty-six to twenty- 
five to inform the House of Bishops at the General Convention of 
1844 that the Seminary had never been "in a more healthful 
condition." As the majority also resolved not to give the Bishops 
the details of the investigation, the minority decided to make a 
report of its own indicating that the condition of the .Seminary 
was not at its healthiest. 

Having received these two reports, in 1844, the Bishops pre 
pared a series of questions to be answered by all of the professors, 


The Bishops* 

The Oxford 

Attacked in 

designed to determine what theological ideas were being im 
planted in the students' minds. This document was concocted in 
a most amazing manner, every question relating to Catholic 
teaching being balanced by one concerned with some feature of 
Calvinism or German Rationalism. The latter group were, pos 
sibly, intended for Professor Turner, whose use of German critics 
exposed him to a certain amount of suspicion, but the questions 
relating to Calvinism must certainly have been aimed in the air. 
The purpose of the whole arrangement can only have been to 
disguise the true object of the inquiry, which was obviously to find 
out if Professor Ogilby, the only Tractarian on the faculty, was 
teaching doctrines not admitted by the Episcopal Church. The 
older professors answered the questions briefly and somewhat 
testily, but Ogilby took great pains to make his position clear, and 
certainly succeeded in indicating that he had not made any dan 
gerous approach toward Roman Catholicism. Bishop Mcllvaine, 
however, apparently suspected that Ogilby was making some 
mental reservations, for he obtained permission to address further 
questions to him individually. Ogilby emerged unscathed from 
this cross-examination and the Bishops proceeded to acquit the 
Seminary of teaching strange doctrines. 

An unsuccessful attempt was made at this same convention to 
obtain a specific condemnation of the Oxford Movement. After 
a resolution had been introduced and withdrawn condemning the 
use of any name but "Protestant Episcopal Church," or the omis 
sion of that name in printed documents relating to the Church, 
another was offered attacking the Tractarian theology and asking 
the Bishops to take action against it. This was defeated, and in its 
place the Deputies resolved that they considered "the Liturgy, 
Offices and Articles of the Church sufficient exponents of her 
sense of the essential doctrines of Holy Scripture," and the canons 
an adequate means of maintaining discipline. They also resolved 
that they die! not consider General Convention the proper place 
for censuring the errors of individuals, or regard the Church as 
responsible for such errors, even if the individuals were among 
her members. 

The Convention of 1844 also passed a canon allowing a bishop to 
resign his jurisdiction directly to the House of Bishops, without 
the consent of his diocese, and another one providing a mode of 


procedure for the trial of a bishop before the same House. This 
second canon culminated a movement which began with an 
amendment to the constitution introduced by Bishop Doane in 
1838 and passed in 1841, providing that a bishop should be tried 
by a court composed only of bishops, and that the mode of trying 
him should be provided by General Convention. A method of 
procedure, prepared by Bishop Hopkins, was passed in 1841, and 
the measure of 1844 was a revision of this. The whole arrangement 
had originated with the High Churchmen, and was designed to 
enhance the prestige of the bishops and secure them from the 
jealousy of their own conventions. By one of the ironies of history, 
however, the procedure was used by the Evangelicals, within a 
decade of its passage, to bring to trial two High Church bishops, 
neither of whom would have been prosecuted by his own diocese. 
One of the changes made in the trial procedure in 1844 was a 
provision allowing a bishop to avoid a formal trial by confessing Suspension of 
his guilt. This, together with the canon on resignations, was de- 
signed to cover the case of the Right Rev. Henry Ustick Onder- 
donk, Bishop of Pennsylvania, who had been presented by his 
diocesan convention for drunkenness. He admitted the offense, 
but explained that he had begun the use of spiritous liquors on 
the advice of his physician, in an effort to alleviate a chronic stom 
ach disorder, and had given up their use when he became aware 
of their effect. His case would seem to be one that called for 
clemency, but the prevailing spirit of the time was not mercy. 
The bitterness excited by his election had been intensified by his 
friendliness to the Oxford Movement, and the Evangelicals, who 
were now in control, refused to accept his resignation, which he 
offered, in hopes that they could force him to stand trial After the 
passage of the canons alluded to, Onderdonk resigned his juris 
diction to the House of Bishops, and also confessed to them the 
guilt of intemperance. His brethren, however, proved no more 
merciful than his diocese, and he was indefinitely suspended from 
his office. This sentence was removed in 1856, on Onderdonk's 
profession of repentance, after a pamphlet controversy in which 
Bishop Hopkins opposed the removal, and Horace Binney, of Phil 
adelphia, one of the most prominent lawyers of his day, supported 
it. Onderdonk's jurisdiction was never restored, Alonzo Potter, 
a leading Evangelical, having become bishop after his resignation. 


Trial of 


The first bishop to be subjected to a formal trial under the new 
amendment and canon was Henry Onderdonk 's brother, Benja 
min Tread well Onderdonk of New York. Shortly after the Carey 
ordination, Bishop Onderdonk 's enemies, of whom the leader was 
the Rev. James C. Richmond, an erratic clergyman of Evangelical 
sympathies, who was known to his contemporaries as "crazy 
Richmond," began to collect various charges which they thought 
reflected seriously upon the Bishop's moral character. When the 
diocesan convention refused to heed their accusations, they suc 
ceeded in persuading three Evangelical bishops, Meade of Vir 
ginia, Otey of Tennessee, and Elliott of Georgia, to present 
Onderdonk to the House of Bishops. Some of the charges dug up 
by the investigators were not even accepted by the presenters, 
though their attitude toward the evidence was not a very critical 
one. The charges as presented related to drunkenness and im 
proper familiarities with women, which were not, however, al 
leged to have extended to any overt act of adultery. The charge 
of drunkenness was not sustained by any competent witness at all. 
The worst of the other charges, and the only one which implied 
a criminal intention, was not supported by the presenters' own 
witness. The remaining counts in the presentment, if allowance 
is made for the exaggeration to be expected from the sort o 
women who would consent to appear in such a case, indicate no 
more than that the Bishop, as is frequently the case with elderly 
men of a certain type, was in the habit of handling people while 
conversing with them. Such a habit is, no doubt, socially obnox 
ious, but it is hardly criminal. One of the alleged offenses had 
taken place seven years before the trial, and the most recent, two 
and one-half years before. The defense was able to show, more 
over, that until they were approached by Mr. Richmond, the wit 
nesses had not acted towards the Bishop with the reserve that they 
might have been expected to display if they really believed that 
they had received improper advances from him. Nevertheless, the 
Bishop was found guilty, and sentenced to indefinite suspension, 
a punishment from which he was never released. 

It is impossible not to see in this verdict the influence of the 
bitter party feeling which prevailed at the time, especially as the 
voting throughout the trial was pretty much along party lines, all 
of the Evangelicals voting to condemn Bishop Onderdonk and 


most, though not all, of the High Churchmen voting to acquit 
him. Most of the witnesses also appear to have had their impres 
sions of the Bishop's conduct affected by their Churchmanship. 
Allowance must be made, however, for the inexperience of the 
bishops in cases of this sort, for the peculiar nineteenth-century 
sensitivity upon all matters relating to sex, and for the bad man 
agement of the defense by Bishop Onderdonk's counsel, Robert 
Graham, a man who was not a Churchman, and who had won 
his reputation at the bar in the defense of notorious criminals. 
The third bishop to come under the action of the Canon of 
1844, and the second to be subjected to a formal trial, or what Trial of 
passed for one, was George Washington Doane, of New Jersey, Blsh P Doane 
who was brought to trial first in 1852 and again in 1853, on charges 
of financial irregularities arising out of the difficulties he had met 
with while trying to establish St. Mary's Hall in Burlington, New 
Jersey. The chief presenter was again Bishop Meade, supported 
this time by Bishops Mcllvaine of Ohio and Burgess of Maine. 
The diocese of New Jersey had previously investigated most of 
the charges, and decided that they did not show a criminal in 
tention. In 1852 the House of Bishops decided to accept the 
decision of the diocesan convention and drop further proceedings. 
As this action was clearly uncanonical, the case was reopened in 
1853. After a good deal of maneuvering, the Court accepted a 
declaration of Bishop Doane's in which he confessed to having 
misapplied trust funds under the impression that he could replace 
them, and admitted a good many other financial irregularities, 
but denied that he had meant to do anything wrong. On the basis 
of this curious document, the Court again voted to drop all pro 
ceedings. From the point of view of canon law, this trial was a 
farce, but it is possible that substantial justice resulted. Doane's 
mismanagement of his financial affairs was shocking, but it was 
obviously the result of incompetence rather than criminality and 
little would have been gained by raking over all his affairs. The 
much greater clemency shown to him than to the Onderdonks 
indicates a partial subsidence of party feeling and probably a 
general conviction that the business of presenting bishops was 
being carried too far. It is also possible that the other bishops were 
better able to sympathize with financial incompetence than with 
sexual impropriety, or drunkenness. 


The Problem 
of Providing 
for New 

in Maryland 

We have anticipated our story a little, in order to include Bishop 
Doane's case in the sequence of episcopal trials. The sentence of 
indefinite suspension which was inflicted on the two Onderdonks 
was a defective one from a canonical point of view, for it left 
open the question of whether or not the respondent was perma 
nently deprived of his jurisdiction. In Pennsylvania, where the 
jurisdiction had been previously resigned, this did not matter 
much, but in New York it raised a serious problem. Benjamin 
Onderdonk was unwilling to make an implied confession of 
guilt by resigning, and his diocese, which remained loyal to him, 
was unwilling to take any action which might lessen the possibil 
ity of his restoration. The General Convention of 1847 passed a 
canon to prevent such difficulties in the future by requiring the 
Bishops, when imposing the sentence of suspension, to fix the time 
or conditions under which it should terminate. All the Convention 
would do for New York, however, was to provide that a diocese 
whose bishop was disqualified by judicial sentence, or for other 
reasons, might employ the services of a neighboring bishop or a 
missionary bishop. As such an arrangement was hardly adequate 
for the largest diocese in the country, the Convention of 1850 
passed a canon allowing a diocese whose bishop was under sen 
tence of indefinite suspension to elect a provisional bishop, who 
should exercise full jurisdiction until and unless the suspended 
bishop was restored, in which case the provisional bishop would 
become an assistant bishop. New York regarded this measure as 
unsatisfactory and voted against it, but, as this was the only solu 
tion offered, that state took advantage of it in 1852 and elected 
Jonathan May hew Wainwright its provisional bishop. 

The General Convention of 1850 also passed a canon relating 
to the bishop's right and duty of visitation. The election of Dr. 
Whittingham as Bishop of Maryland had, naturally, made that 
diocese a center of Anglo-Catholicism, and many young converts 
to the movement went there after ordination, so that they might 
have the opportunity of serving under a Catholic-minded bishop. 
Whittingham, like most of the early Tractarians, was conservative 
in the matter of ritual, and, in order to check the innovations of 
some of his young followers, on the one hand, and to bring the 
rest of the diocese up to his own position on the other, he was 
induced, as his principles amply justified him in doing, to make 


what then seemed a strong assertion of his episcopal authority. In 
the matter o visitations, specifically, he claimed the right of ad 
ministering the Eucharist on all such occasions, with or without 
the rector's consent, of appropriating the collections, and of pro 
nouncing Absolution and Benediction in the services of Morning 
and Evening Prayer. These claims were objected to by a part of 
the diocese, and one clergyman, the Rev. Joseph Trapnell, was 
brought to trial for opposing them. The case was decided against 
him in the diocesan court, and since there was no method of 
bringing a formal appeal, some of the Maryland parishes me 
morialized the General Convention, asking it to take some action 
in the premises. 

As a result of this appeal, the Convention of 1850 passed the 
canon alluded to, which stated that it was the duty of a bishop to 
visit every parish in his diocese regularly "for the purpose of exam 
ining the state of his church, inspecting the behavior of his clergy, 
ministering the Word, and, if he think fit, the Sacrament of the 
Lord's Supper . . . and administering the Apostolic Rite of Con 
firmation." It was "deemed proper that such visitation be made 
once in three years, at least." The parish visited must pay the 
bishop's expenses, and the other clergy must arrange to supply 
his own parish, if he had one. Thus a part of the Maryland 
dispute was settled in favor of the bishop. The remaining 
points were left open, with a hint as to the desirability of mutual 

It is probable that some of the provisions of this canon were 
directed, not at the situation in Maryland, but in Massachusetts, Dispute in 
where a dispute had arisen between Bishop Eastburn and the Massachusetts 
Church of the Advent. That church had been organized by Wil 
liam Croswell in 1844 as an. Anglo-Catholic parish. Bishop East- 
burn, who was a bitter opponent of the Oxford Movement, refused 
to visit the new parish unless its services and the internal arrange 
ments of the building were brought into conformity with the 
prevailing usage. This the rector and vestry refused to do, and so 
the parish remained unvisited. 

The crucial provision of the canon of 1850, that which called 
for a visitation once every three years, was cast in such a form 
that it amounted merely to an expression of opinion by the Con 
vention. To this Eastburn gave little heed, and after a prolonged 


attempt to effect a reconciliation locally, the Church of the Advent 
memorialized the General Convention of 1856, asking it to adopt 
a more mandatory regulation on the subject. This request was 
granted, and it was further provided that a parish not visited once 
in three years must apply to the Presiding Bishop for a Council 
of Reconciliation, which should be composed of the bishops of 
five neighboring dioceses. 
We cannot, however, so quickly leave the year 1853, which was 

Bishop a dramatic and, in some respects, an important year in our history. 

L. S, Ives The second trial of Bishop Doane was probably the least striking 
of the three major events of that year. The next to be considered 
was the deposition of Bishop Levi Silliman Ives, of North Caro 
lina, who had announced his conversion to Roman Catholicism at 
the close of the preceding year. There had always been occasional 
conversions from our Church to the Roman Catholic and vice- 
versa^ as there always are between denominations which have any 
contact with one another. After the conversion of Newman there 
was an increase in the number of conversions from our side which, 
while not especially striking when compared with the total num 
ber of our clergy, was marked when compared with the previous 
infrequency of such changes. Most of the converts were drawn 
from among the younger Tractarians, and Bishop Ives was the 
first in this country who had attained a prominent place in the 
Episcopal Church before leaving it. He had been brought up a 
Presbyterian but had come into the Episcopal Church as a young 
man, and after graduating from General Seminary had fallen 
under the influence of Bishop Hobart, whose son-in-law he be 
came. With the coming of the Oxford Movement he moved over 
from Hobart Churchmanship to Tractarianism, and sought to 
introduce Anglo-Catholic usages into North Carolina, founding a 
religious order at Valle Crucis, which was, however, disbanded 
in 1849. In a Pastoral Letter on the Priestly Office, in 1849, and in 
a series of sermons, he was understood to teach the necessity of 
auricular confession, though he later explained that he had not 
meant quite that, and he was believed to have expressed privately 
his acceptance of the doctrine of Transubstantiation and his opin 
ion that the Episcopal Church was guilty of schism. After a series 
of disputes and explanations, he furnished a committee of the 
diocesan convention of 1851 with a recantation in which he 



attributed his previous opinion to a dream of uniting the two 
communions, resulting from an excited state of mind induced by 
the condition of his bodily health. 

This recantation reassured the diocese for a time, and when in 
1852 Ives asked for a leave of six months and an advance of one He Becomes a 
thousand dollars on his salary to travel for his health, it was Roman 
granted him. Before leaving this country, he deposited with Arch- a 
bishop Hughes a renunciation of Protestantism and an expression 
of his determination to enter the Roman Catholic Church, but he 
did not notify his diocese of his decision until he had reached 
Rome, whence he wrote on December 22, 1852, announcing his 
conversion and resigning his diocese. This resignation, being ad 
dressed to the diocesan convention and not to the House of 
Bishops, was uncanonical, and in 1853 a canon was passed by 
General Convention providing that any minister abandoning our 
communion without availing himself of the provision for resig 
nation, should be declared automatically deposed by his bishop, 
or, if he was a bishop, by the Presiding Bishop with the consent 
of the House. Under this canon, Bishop Ives was declared to have 
been deposed, and the Rev. Thomas Atkinson, who had been pre 
viously elected by the diocese, was consecrated Bishop of North 
Carolina. Ives, some time after his conversion, became a pioneer 
leader of Roman Catholic charities in this country. Within the 
Episcopal Church his conversion caused a good deal of excitement, 
but it produced no permanent results of any significance. 

The third and most important event of the year 1853 was the 
presentation of the so-called "Muhlenberg Memorial" to the House The "Muhlen- 
of Bishops. William Augustus Muhlenberg, who was the orig- 
inator of this document, was one of those who had been greatly 
influenced by the Oxford Movement without accepting its basic 
position. He is quoted by his biographer as saying, "I was far out 
on the bridge . . . that crosses the gulf between us and Rome. 
I had passed through the mists of vulgar Protestant prejudices 
when I saw before me The Mystery of Abomination.' I flew back, 
not to rest on the pier of High Churchism, from which this bridge 
of Puseyism springs, but on the solid rock of Evangelical truth, 
as republished by the Reformers." As a result of this experience he 
evolved a system which he called "Evangelical Catholicism." It 
consisted, apparently, in engrafting Anglo-Catholic usages upon a 


moderately Evangelical theology. We have already mentioned the 
school and college which he founded at Flushing. He gave this up 
in 1844 and started the Church of the Holy Communion in New 
York City, one of the first churches in the country not to have 
rented pews. There he employed a fairly elaborate ritual, partly 
traditional, partly of his own devising. He also founded the first 
successful Sisterhood in our country, and he was a pioneer in 
Church social work, founding St. Luke's Hospital in 1850 and 
"St. Johnland," a charitable community on Long Island, in 1870. 
The Memorial, which was signed by Muhlenberg and a good 

Its Proposals many other prominent presbyters, after mentioning the decline of 
religion that the subscribers thought was taking place, stated 
that its object was to submit to the bishops "the practicality, under 
your auspices, of some ecclesiastical system, broader and more 
comprehensive than that which you now administer, surrounding 
and including the Protestant Episcopal Church as it now is, leav 
ing that Church untouched, identical with that Church in all its 
great principles, yet providing for as much freedom in opinion, 
discipline, and worship, as is compatible with the essential faith 
and order of the Gospel." The Memorial did not undertake to 
explain how this end could be attained, but in a pamphlet which 
he published shortly afterwards Muhlenberg suggested that the 
bishops, acting on their inherent episcopal authority, and without 
any other sanction, should ordain men for the ministry outside of 
the Church. These men were to declare their belief in the Holy 
Scriptures as the Word of God, the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds, 
the divine institution of the two great sacraments, and the "doc 
trines of grace" substantially as set forth in the Thirty-Nine Arti 
cles. They were to use the Lord's Prayer, one of the creeds, the 
Gloria Patri, and certain other specified prayers in their Sunday 
services, and to follow the Prayer Book more or less closely in 
the canon of the Eucharist. They would be required to report once 
every three years to the bishop who had ordained them, but the 
details of their discipline were to be worked out as circumstances 
might require. 
It is surprising that this proposal, involving, as it did, an almost 

Et s Supporters unprecedented extension of episcopal authority, received its most 
unqualified support from Evangelicals rather than High Church 
men. There were a number of the latter party among the signers 



of the Memorial, but their names are found mostly among those 
who, while agreeing with the general object of the Memorial, were 
unable to approve of all its recommendations. It is probable that 
most of the signers were concerned with the practical problem 
rather than with theories of polity, and that they adopted this 
appeal to the inherent powers of episcopacy in the hope that it 
would win them support from the Anglo-Catholics, as to some 
extent it did. Muhlenberg, in defending the proposal, stressed 
chiefly the obvious failure of the Church with its present ministry 
and usages to reach the common people, a failure which, he held, 
ought not to be regarded complacently by any Church claiming 
to be Catholic. 

There is no doubt that Muhlenberg had laid his finger upon the 
most glaring weakness of the Church, but it would seem that the i te weaknesses 
particular solution which he offered involved difficulties which 
would almost certainly have been insurmountable. Even suppos 
ing that such a course of action on the part of the bishops would 
not have caused a furor within the Church, as it certainly would 
have, the problem of organizing and disciplining a body of min 
isters "surrounding and including the Protestant Episcopal 
Church," yet remaining outside of it, would have been tremen 
dous. Moreover, there is no evidence of the existence of any large 
number of popular preachers who were so anxious for episcopal 
ordination that they would have accepted it upon these terms. A 
few years later, Muhlenberg seems to have seen that his suggestion 
was not likely to be accepted, for in a pamphlet entitled What the 
Memorialists Want, published in 1856, he implied that all they 
asked for was a greater degree of liturgical freedom within the 

The House of Bishops, when it received the Memorial, ap 
pointed a committee, which included Bishop Alonzo Potter of Memorial 
Pennsylvania, one of the most statesmanlike of the Evangelical Papers 
Bishops, to consider its suggestions and report at the next Con 
vention. In order to ascertain the mind of the Church upon the 
subject, Bishop Potter sought the opinion of all the leading bishops 
and other clergymen of the Episcopal Church and of some repre 
sentative men from other denominations. Their answers were pub 
lished in a volume called Memorial Papers in 1857. They constitute 
a thorough-going analysis of the Church's system as it was then 


working, and are rich in suggestions for change, some of which 
were adopted many years later, and some of which are still being 
agitated. Most of the contributors were in favor of the general 
aims of the Memorial, but thought its chief proposal too radical. 
In the end not much was done about the matter. At the Conven- 
Rcsuks o tion of 1856, Bishop Potter's committee recommended the adop- 
Mcmonal t j Qn o ^ p ract j ce o f extemporaneous preaching (the prevailing 
custom was for ministers to read sermons), and its use occasionally 
outside of church buildings, the use of traveling evangelists, the 
ministry of women in some sort of sisterhood, a greater attention 
to the instruction of the young and their employment as teachers 
in Sunday schools, a more rigorous training of candidates for the 
ministry, better reading of the services, more participation of the 
congregations in the services, an increase of the ministry, efforts 
to promote Christian unity, the separation of the Litany and Morn 
ing Prayer from the Communion Service (formerly, all were 
read on Communion Sundays), and the adoption of some special 
prayers which the committee had prepared. 

Few of these suggestions were adopted at the time, but the 
House of Bishops did resolve that the Morning Prayer, Litany, 
and Communion might be separated, that on special occasions 
ministers might use any parts of Scripture or the Prayer Book, at 
discretion, and that individual bishops might provide special 
prayers for use in their dioceses, though these must not be allowed 
to supplant the Book of Common Prayer in congregations capable 
of its use. They also declared their willingness to appoint a com 
mittee of conference with any Christian body that might desire 
it, but with the understanding that no such committee should 
have power to mature plans of union or expound doctrine or dis 
cipline. Even these resolutions, some of which merely sanctioned 
existing customs, were too strong for the House of Deputies, and 
in 1859 they asked the Bishops to withdraw them, on the ground 
that they had disturbed the minds of many Churchmen, and were 
believed to be unconstitutional. The Bishops avoided acting on this 
request by pleading the lateness of the session. 

This disagreement illustrates the growing friction between the 
two houses which showed itself at this period. In the early years o 
General Convention disagreements between the Bishops and Dep 
uties were rare, and if the resolution of one house was unacceptable 


to the other, it was generally withdrawn. IXiring the middle years Friction in 
of the century, however, such disagreements became almost the Com^ition 
rule, and there was an increase in the length and asperity of the 
debates within the separate houses as well. There was also, as 
might be expected, a steady increase in the amount of business to 
be transacted by the Convention. 

A Split 



HANKS to a number of circumstances, the Episcopal Church 
passed through the Civil War without any lasting division. As has 
j 3een a ] reac jy mentioned, though most of the northern Evangelicals 
in the later stages of the slavery controversy took a stand in favor 
of abolition, the High Churchmen either remained aloof from the 
dispute, or openly supported slavery, as did Bishop Hopkins and 
Dr. Samuel Seabury. This division possibly saved the Church from 
splitting on the slavery question, as so many other denominations 
had done in the forties and fifties, for the High Churchmen and 
the Southern Evangelicals together always represented so large a 
majority that it was obviously hopeless to introduce any resolutions 
condemning slavery in General Convention. 

When the war came, the southern dioceses quite properly or 
ganized themselves into a union embracing the Confederate States, 
which they hoped would continue as a separate country, and re 
vised the Prayer Book so as to adapt it to the political changes. Had 
the rebellion been successful, the division would necessarily have 
continued, since it is an accepted principle of the Anglican Com 
munion that the churches in separate countries should be inde 
pendent. It was important, however, that nothing should be done 
in the North which would prevent the reunion of the Church in 
the event the political secession proved a failure. 

At the General Convention of 1862 this fact was clearly under- 
Thc General stood by the majority, and it was just as clearly their wish to avoid 
any action that wou l d su gg e st the existence of a schism, or tend to 
perpetuate the bitterness between the two sections once the war 
was over, though, at the same time, they were anxious to express 
their loyalty to the Union. The Convention was opened with a 
belligerent sermon by Bishop McCoskry, but when the House of 
Deputies organized, the committee on arrangements, under the 



Rev. Francis Vinton, reported that it had provided seats for all of 
the dioceses, absent as well as present. Some attempt was made, 
however, to get the Convention to condemn the rebellion, resolu 
tions to this effect being introduced by Mr. F. R. Brunot of Penn 
sylvania, who had just made a visit to the battlefields, and Judge 
Murray Hoffman of New York. The debate on the subject was 
conducted mainly by the lay delegates, though a few of the clergy 
participated, Vinton, in spite of his earlier action, supporting the 
resolutions, and the Rev. Doctors W. C. Mead and Milo Mahan 
opposing them. The laymen appear to have divided along political 
rather than ecclesiastical lines. The important mid-term elections 
were approaching and a strong condemnation of the rebellion by 
General Convention would be, in effect, an endorsement of the 
Republican administration. So far as their political affiliations are 
traceable, the supporters of the resolutions seem to have been 
persons interested in the welfare of the Republican Party, and 
the opposition included such prominent Democrats as Judge 
Ezekiel Chambers of Maryland and Horatio Seymour of New 

Eventually, the resolutions were tabled by a large majority, and 
a committee of nine was appointed to draft some resolutions which The Corn- 
would express the sense of the House. They reported a series lttee of 
which affirmed the loyalty of the Episcopal Church, and its be 
lief that a great evil would result to both the Church and the 
country if secession were persisted in. While stedfastly refusing 
to employ towards the seceders "any terms of condemnation or 
reproach," they expressed repentance for the sins which had 
brought this judgment on the country, stated the hope of the 
Deputies as individuals and citizens that the cause of union would 
triumph, and declared their readiness to use any special prayers 
which the bishops might think proper under the circumstances. 
After more debate and the introduction of a number of substi 
tutes, many of which seem to have been designed chiefly to delay 
the proceedings, these resolutions were passed by the House of 

The Bishops merely passed a resolution, in which the lower 
house concurred, setting apart a day of fasting, humiliation, and The Pastoral 
prayer for the ills of the nation. They did, however, issue a bel- Letter 
ligerent Pastoral Letter. As Bishop Brownell, the Presiding Bishop, 


The General 
Convention of 

18 5 


was unable to attend the Convention, Bishops Hopkins and Mc- 
Ilvaine, the two senior bishops present, were asked to prepare 
pastoral letters. That o Bishop Hopkins, as might be expected, 
avoided political pronouncements, but that of Bishop Mcllvaine 
was strongly pro-Union. The House adopted the latter. According 
to Bishop Hopkins' son, who was then editing the Church Journal, 
this action was taken as the result of considerable pressure from 
Secretaries Seward and Chase, two Episcopal members of the 
Lincoln Cabinet. The Convention refused to elect a new Board 
of Missions, because of the impracticality of choosing southern 
members, and the old Board was continued. 

When the next General Convention met in 1865, the war was 
over and the South was crushed. It was of the greatest importance 
jj^ fa t representatives of the victorious section should avoid as- 
suming a note of triumph or reproach that would antagonize the 
vanquished. Most of the northern delegates came to the Conven 
tion with a clear realization of this fact. When the House of Depu 
ties assembled, the roll of all the states was called in alphabetical 
order, Alabama thus coming first. No southern delegates were 
present at the first roll call, but representatives from Texas and 
North Carolina appeared during the first day. All of the "Border 
States" were represented, though some of their deputies were late 
in arriving. The Rev. James Craik, of Kentucky, who had been 
President of the House of Deputies in 1862, was re-elected to that 
office. On the second day of the session Rev. William Cooper 
Mead and the Rev. Mark Antony DeWolfe Howe, subsequently 
Bishop of Central Pennsylvania, offered resolutions expressing 
gratitude for the restoration of peace and hope for the return of 
the South. Those of Dr. Howe were regarded as sounding too 
much of a note of triumph, and at the suggestion of Mr. Welsh of 
Pennsylvania both resolutions were withdrawn, pending action 
of the House of Bishops. 

On the third day, after the appearance of the deputies from 
Tennessee, the Rev. George David Cummins introduced a resolu- 
^^ w ki c h h e said he hoped would be adopted without discus 
sion, expressing gratitude for the presence of the representatives 
from Texas, North Carolina, and Tennessee. There was, however, 
a small group of radicals in the Convention who were unwilling 
that the Church should be reunited without some gesture of 


triumph from the North. These objected to the resolution and a 
motion to lay it on the table was lost only by a tie vote, a large 
number of the conservatives fearing that further discussion might 
provoke bitterness. After two clerical delegates had spoken in its 
favor, however, the measure was passed by an almost unanimous 

The Convention also passed a resolution expressing its convic 
tion that it was improper for the clergy to bear arms. This was 
probably prompted by the case of Bishop Polk of Louisiana who 
had served in the war as a Confederate General and had been killed 
in action, but his name was not mentioned in the debate on the 
resolution, and the election of Bishop Quintard of Tennessee, 
who had also served in the Confederate Army, was confirmed 
with only two dissenting votes. A more difficult case was that 
of Bishop Richard Hooker Wilmer of Alabama, who had been 
consecrated by the southern bishops during the war, though 
his election, of course, had not been confirmed either by the Gen 
eral Convention or by the bishops and standing committees of a 
majority of the dioceses in the whole Church, as the constitution 
requires. After some discussion, it was resolved to approve his 
consecration on the condition that Bishop Wilmer would give a 
promise of conformity to the doctrine and discipline of the Protes 
tant Episcopal Church, and would furnish proof of the validity of 
his consecration. This arrangement, which was based upon the 
theory that Wilmer had been consecrated for a foreign country, 
was proposed by Hamilton Fish, subsequently Secretary of State 
in Grant's Cabinet, and supported by Judge Chambers. 

As Bishop Brownell had died early in the year, the Presiding 
Bishop in 1865 was Bishop Hopkins, who had always been a Proceedings 

southern sympathizer. Bishop Atkinson, of North Carolina, ap- &* H 
1 i r i ,-* 1 11- 1 or Bishops 

peared at the opening or the Convention and took his seat in the 

House of Bishops without comment. With the concurrence of the 
Deputies, the Bishops resolved to set apart a day of thanksgiving 
for "the return of peace to the country and unity to the Church." 
As Bishop Wilmer had issued a Pastoral Letter expressing bitter 
feelings against the North, the assembled bishops expressed their 
"fraternal regrets" at his action and their "assured confidence that 
no further occasion for such regrets" would occur. They decided 
not to issue a Pastoral Letter themselves that year, but authorized 




Bishop Mcllvaine to publish one condemning the Essays and Re 
views recently published by some liberal Churchmen in England. 
As a result of the care exercised at this Convention to avoid giving 
offense, all of the southern states were represented at the General 
Convention of 1868. 

One or two other incidents of the Civil War might be men- 
Controversy tioned before leaving it. In 1861 Bishop Hopkins published a book 
Between called the Bible View of Slavery, in which he set forth the various 

kins and Potter occas i ns on which the Bible sanctioned slavery. In 1863 this was 
reprinted, with Hopkins' consent, by some Philadelphia Church 
men and used as a campaign document by the Pennsylvania 
Democrats. Regarding this as, in some measure, an invasion of 
his jurisdiction, Bishop Alonzo Potter published a Protest which 
was, in turn, used as a Republican campaign document. Hopkins 
replied in a pamphlet and subsequently in a longer work which 
he called A Scriptural, Ecclesiastical and Historical View of Slav 
ery, in which he supplemented his earlier argument by showing 
that slavery had frequently been sanctioned by the Christian 

Bishop Mcllvaine went to England early in the war, at the 
request of Secretary Seward, in an effort to win over English pub 
lic opinion which, at least among the governing classes, was gen 
erally hostile to the Union cause. It is impossible to say how much 
was accomplished by his mission, but it was probably as useful 
as the more famous but later visit of Henry Ward Beecher. Bishop 
Thomas M. Clark served, during the war as a prominent member 
of the Sanitary Commission, a semi-official body which did what 
could be done to correct the unhealthy conditions prevailing in 
military camps and hospitals, and to alleviate the lot of the com 
mon soldiers in other ways. 

The peaceful reunion of the Church after the Civil War had 
scarcely been completed when its harmony was torn by what was 
undoubtedly the bitterest conflict in its history. As we have seen, 
the older Tractarians, though they took an appreciative attitude 
toward mediaeval ceremonial, were unprepared, for reasons of ex 
pediency, to introduce any movement for liturgical changes in 
their own day. When the party had entered on its second genera 
tion, however, many of its younger adherents began to feel that 
the enrichment of the Church's services which they desired was 

and Clark 




worth the conflict they knew it would produce. During the fifties, 
therefore, a few clergymen in England and America began the 
introduction of ritualistic practices which were not in accord with 
prevailing customs, and which were not specifically sanctioned by 
the Prayer Book. In defense of these innovations it was asserted 
that the Prayer Book itself contained no ceremonial rules, except 
the bare minimum necessary to go through its services, and that 
there had been no intention on the part of those who originally 
prepared it to prohibit the customary usages which were prevalent 
at the time of the Reformation, and continued for many years 
after. As long, therefore, as no ritual specifically forbidden was 
introduced, it was held that the revival of the lapsed ceremonial 
was entirely legal. 

Technically this contention was probably correct, though there 
was some tendency to strain the rubrics and canons a bit in apply- Legality of 
ing it, but it was obvious that the effect of the ritualistic revival 1 a lsm 
upon most Churchmen had very little to do with its formal legal 
ity. What the average layman, and, for that matter, the average 
clergyman, also, saw was that usages which they had been accus 
tomed to regard as peculiar to Roman Catholicism were being 
introduced into a Church which they were used to regarding as 
Protestant, and were changing the appearance of services they had 
known and loved since childhood. That they should, therefore, 
have lost their heads for a time is not altogether surprising. The 
most bitter opponents of this, as of the earlier phases of the Oxford 
Movement, were the Evangelicals, but they were supported by 
many conservative Churchmen of all sorts, including many of the 
older Tractarians, though these only appear to have joined in 
active opposition when they became convinced that Ritualism was 
seriously threatening the peace and even the unity of the Church. 
The position of the Evangelicals was weakened by the fact that, 
at the same time that they sought fresh canons to restrain the 
Ritualists, they were also asking for a relaxation of the canons and 
rubrics in favor of themselves. They objected especially to the 
necessity of speaking of regeneration in the Baptismal Office and 
to a canon recently passed which forbade any minister of the 
Church to officiate within another minister's "parish/ 5 without his 
consent. This was simply an imitation of the primitive and 
mediaeval canons against "intrusion," but the effort to adapt it to 


Tyng Case 




of 1868 

this country, where there are no definite parish boundaries, was 
not altogether a happy one. For the purposes of the canon, a parish 
was defined as including the whole community in which a church 
was situated and if there was more than one church, the com 
munity was regarded as a joint parish, so that a visiting clergyman 
had to obtain the consent of all the ministers before officiating. 
In practice the canon was used chiefly to prevent the Evangelicals 
from joining in the services of other denominations. 

In 1868 the Rev. Stephen H. Tyng, Jr., was brought to trial 
under this canon, in the Diocese of New York, and sentenced to 
receive admonition for violating it. Though the penalty was not a 
very severe one, the fact that Tyng's father, the successor of Milnor 
at St. George's, was one of the most prominent of the Evangelicals, 
gave the case a good deal of notoriety, and its outcome not only 
made that party more anxious than ever for the repeal of the 
canon, but probably, also, by way of reaction, increased their desire 
to curb their opponents. 

At first, many of the older High Churchmen refused to support 
the Evangelicals. In 1867, Morgan Dix, rector of Trinity Church, 
William Croswell Doane, a son of the late Bishop of New 
Jersey and himself the future Bishop of Albany, and some 
other High Church clergymen asked the Presiding Bishop, John 
Henry Hopkins, to express his opinion upon the question of 
Ritualism which, they said, "is extensively agitating the Church 
of England and has already begun to make itself felt in our own 
Church." Hopkins met their request by publishing a treatise on 
The Law of Ritualism in which, after citing the Old Testament 
and primitive Christian precedents for ritual, he asserted that, as 
the use prevailing in the second year of Edward VI was, by statute, 
the legal use of England, most of the practices of the Ritualists 
were not only permitted but required by English canon law. 
Reasoning from the widely accepted opinion that as much of 
English canon law as had not been repealed was still in force in 
our Church, he argued a fortiori that the practices must at least be 
permitted here. This argument was not quite complete, for, as 
was brought out in later discussions, some of the practices of the 
Ritualists were forbidden by the English Canons of 1603, which, 
on the principle stated, must also be in force in the Protestant 
Episcopal Church. 


At the General Convention of 1868 a serious attempt was made 
to obtain canons condemnatory of Ritualism, but the only resolu 
tions on this subject which passed the House of Deputies were one 
asking the bishops to consider the possibility of changing the 
rubrics to make the ceremonial law of the Church more precise, 
and another recommending that changes in ritual should not be 
introduced in any parish without the approval of the Ordinary 
of the diocese. The bishops appointed a committee to report at the 
next Convention on the desirability of any further provision for 
ritual uniformity, and issued a Pastoral Letter against Ritualism. 
They refused to consider the possibility of any change in the 
rubrics, however. An unsuccessful attempt was also made by the 
Evangelicals to obtain a relaxation of the canon on intrusion. 

At the Convention of 1871 the bishops' committee reported a 
canon which prohibited by name all of the ritualistic practices General 
that they could think of, including incense, crucifixes, processional 
crosses, lights on or about the Holy Table, "except when neces 
sary," elevation, the mixing of water with the wine, "as part of 
the service, or in the presence of the congregation," bowings or 
genuflexions, except at the Holy Name, and many other usages. 
They also proposed to forbid the introduction of a choral service 
or vested choir by any minister without the explicit consent of his 
vestry and the tacit consent of his bishop, and to regulate the vest 
ments of all the clergy. The Bishops hesitated to present this strait- 
jacket to the House of Deputies on their own responsibility, and 
so they asked for the appointment of a joint committee to consider 
the matter. This committee scrapped the proposed canon and 
recommended instead a declaratory canon to the effect that the 
ritual law of the Church was to be found in the Book of Common 
Prayer and appended offices, such of the English canons of 1603 
as were in force in the states in 1789, and the canons of General 
Convention and the several dioceses. This measure passed the 
House of Bishops but failed, though by a narrow margin, in the 
House of Deputies. 

The debate on this measure was chiefly important as it brought 
into prominence the Rev. James De Koven, President of Racine James 
College, Wisconsin, who was the only avowed ritualist in the 
House of Deputies, and probably the only really brilliant orator 
that that House ever produced. No man could be better fitted to 


defend an unpopular cause. His forensic ability and high personal 
integrity invariably commanded the respect of his opponents, and 
his skill in debate made him almost a party in himself. His great 
est argument, however, was to be delivered in the next convention, 
not in this one. In the present discussion he pointed out that very 
few of the canons of 1603 were ever in force in the American 
colonies anyway, and that if they were to be salvaged from desue 
tude now every clergyman would, among other things, be com 
pelled to wear a plain night cap. 

It was also proposed at the Convention of 1871 to amend the 
canon on the use of the Prayer Book by adding a statement that 
"this rule shall be understood to prohibit all additions to and 
omissions from the prescribed order of said Book." This amend 
ment passed both houses, but the Bishops refused to concur in a 
further proviso attached to it by the Deputies, and the whole thing 
was tabled. The Bishops, acting in Council, did, however, express 
the opinion that the word "regenerate" in the Baptismal Office 
did not imply a moral change. 

The Evangelicals were greatly disappointed by their failure to 
Right Rev. ^ obtain any definite action against Ritualism at this Convention, 
George David anc j some o ^ m began to despair of the Protestantism of the 

Cummins -^ . i /-M i i t s-^r i 1 

Episcopal Church altogether. Of this group the most prominent 
member was the Right Rev. George David Cummins, Assistant 
Bishop of Kentucky. Cummins, whose honorable contribution to 
the reunion of the Church after the Civil War we have already 
noted, had had a brilliant career as a preacher which had brought 
him into prominence at an early age. A consistent Evangelical, 
he was greatly distressed by the ritualistic practices that Bishop 
Smith tolerated in some of the parishes in Kentucky, and he also 
became involved in one or two disputes with Bishop Whitehouse 
of Illinois, who was especially bitter against the Evangelicals and 
who twice tried to prevent Cummins from preaching in his dio 
cese. Cummins appears to have received the first suggestion of a 
separation from the Episcopal Church from Mason Gallagher in 
1869, but at that time he thought the measure premature. 

In 1872 Bishop Smith went to live at Hoboken, New Jersey, for 
his health, and the diocese of Kentucky adopted the unprecedented 
measure of asking him to exercise jurisdiction in absentia instead 
of allowing it to devolve on the assistant bishop. This naturally 



aroused Cummins' resentment, but the last straw was furnished by 
the criticism aroused by his receiving Communion and preaching 
in a non-Episcopalian Church in New York City on October 12, 
1873. No canonical proceedings were taken against him for this 
act, but the controversy which it caused made him feel that his 
liberty within the Protestant Episcopal Church was too restricted. 
On November 10, 1873, he wrote to Bishop Smith, who was Pre 
siding Bishop as well as his immediate superior, expressing his 
intention of leaving the Church, because of the conscientious dif 
ficulties he felt about visiting ritualistic parishes in Kentucky, his 
loss of hope that the "system of error" prevailing in the Anglican 
Communion would ever be eradicated, and the storm aroused by 
his communing with members of other denominations. 

He was followed in his departure from our communion by a 
number of the more radical Evangelicals, and on December 2, 
1873, the seceders met at New York and organized the Reformed 
Episcopal Church. Curiously enough, they found the "Proposed 
Book" prepared by White and Smith in 1785 so perfectly fitted to 
their needs that they adopted it without revision as their official 
Prayer Book. One of the leading members of the new Church was 
the Rev. Charles Edward Cheney, whom Cummins presently or 
dained as their second bishop. He had been a presbyter of the 
Diocese of Illinois and had been deposed by Bishop Whitehouse 
for omitting the word "regenerate" in the Baptismal Service, but 
the sentence was reversed by a civil court. 

This event was in the mind of everyone at the General Conven 
tion of 1874, and it soon became evident that the majority was 
resolved not to adjourn without passing some canon on ritual 
that would be satisfactory enough to the Evangelicals to prevent 
any further secession. The House of Deputies, at the preceding 
Convention, had been wearied by the long-windedness of certain 
lay delegates, and when the discussion of Ritualism came up this 
time, a resolution was proposed limiting each speaker to thirty 
minutes. De Koven, who had evidently come with a prepared 
speech, objected to this rule, and the delegate who proposed it 
declared that he was always glad to hear from Dr. De Koven and 
would be happy to move an exception in that gentleman's favor 
when the time came. With this understanding the resolution 
was passed. 

of Bishop 
Cummins and 
Others From 
the Church 

The General 
Convention of 


The canon finally adopted by this Convention provided that if 
a bishop had reason to believe that use was being made within 
his jurisdiction of ceremonies or practices symbolizing false or 
doubtful doctrine, he must summon his Standing Committee to 
investigate the rumor. If it proved true, he must first admonish 
the offending minister and, if he proved recalcitrant, bring him 
to trial for a violation of "his ordination vows. As examples of the 
practices meant, the canon referred specifically to the Elevation of 
the Elements in the Eucharist or other acts of adoration towards 
them, the displaying of a crucifix in the church, and the use of 
incense. The complexity of this canon was the result of the desire 
of its sponsors to indicate that, though their immediate object was 
the prohibition of certain liturgical practices, their ultimate pur 
pose was to prevent the presentation of doctrines which they 
considered inconsistent with the teaching of the Church. 

The debate on the canon centered mainly on the question of 
De Kovcn's Eucharistic Adoration, which was about the only ritualistic prac- 
Specch tj ce then advocated involving an important doctrinal issue. De 

Koven's speech, when he delivered it, amply justified the conces 
sion in regard to time which had been made to him. Not only was 
it a brilliant forensic effort, but it put the argument upon an 
entirely new basis. Heretofore both sides had shown a tendency to 
seek the greatest possible freedom for themselves while placing 
the greatest possible restraint upon their opponents. De Koven, 
however, placed his defense squarely upon the plea of compre 
hensiveness. He intimated that he was willing to see the bishops 
make any allowance they could for conscientious scruples concern 
ing Baptismal Regeneration. He observed that, with respect to the 
Eucharist, Zwinglianism had been openly advocated in the Church, 
and that he, for one, had no desire to drive it out. He felt, how 
ever, that a similar tolerance should be shown to extreme opinions 
in the other direction, He quoted Dr. S. F. Jarvis, a distinguished 
canonist, as having said, in a sermon before the Board of Mis 
sions, that both those who believed in a real change in the 
Eucharist, "by which the very elements themselves, though they 
retain their original properties, are corporally united with and 
transformed into Christ," and those who held to a purely spiritual 
presence must be tolerated in the Church. And he concluded by 


saying that the Church should strive to meet the challenge of the 
times and not dissipate its strength in fighting over unessentials. 

This view of the comprehensiveness of the Church was not a 
new one, as De Koven's quotation from Dr. Jarvis indicates, but 
it had been lost sight of in the bitterness of the controversy stirred 
up by the Oxford Movement. It was reasserted, independently, by 
John Cotton Smith in a paper read at the first meeting of the 
Church Congress, held shortly before the Convention, but De 
Koven's presentation was more widely circulated and attracted 
more attention. 

Eventually the settlement of the controversy suggested by these 
men proved to be the one that was found most consistent with Ritual 
the genius of the Episcopal Church, but it required some time 
for the ideas which they presented to take hold of men's minds, 
and the canon which De Koven opposed was passed by a sub 
stantial majority, the Evangelicals being supported not only by the 
more conservative High Churchmen, but even by some of the 
older Tractarians, such as Bishop Coxe of Western New York and 
the Rev. William Dexter Wilson of Cornell University, author of 
The Church Identified, a popular presentation of the Tractarian 
position. The attitude of such men was probably caused partly by 
a fear of further schism and partly by a distrust of the ritualistic 
attitude towards the Eucharist, which was thought to imply a 
belief in the corporeal Presence. 

The Ritualists suffered another defeat at this Convention when 
the Deputies refused to confirm the election of the Rev. George F. Seymour 
Seymour as Bishop of Illinois. Seymour was a professor at General Case 
Seminary, and the most serious charges against him were that he 
had once refused to concur with the rest of the faculty in a reso 
lution designed to curb advanced views on the Eucharist and Con 
fession among the students, though it was not alleged that he 
himself held such views, and that, when acting as Dean, he had 
permitted Father Grafton, a representative of the Confraternity 
of the Blessed Sacrament, to present "his peculiar views of the 
Holy Eucharist" to some Seminary students in a private room. 
Seymour had declared that the incident had occurred without his 
knowledge and no proof to the contrary was ever offered, but the 
mere suspicion of his connivance in Grafton's action was consid 
ered enough to justify his exclusion from the episcopate. There 


appears, indeed, to have been some doubt as to Seymour's personal 
honesty in the minds of the delegates, but the basis or this distrust 

is unknown. , _. . , T 

After Seymour's rejection, the Diocese of Illinois chose James 
De Koven as bishop. This was an even more direct challenge to 
the anti-Ritualists, for not only was De Koven the outstanding 
champion of Ritualism, but his personal integrity and worth were 
above the suspicion of even the most hostile minds. If he were to 
be rejected, it could be only on the ground that no one who held 
his views was worthy of elevation to the episcopate, and on this 
ground he was, in fact, rejected, the action being taken by a ma 
jority of the standing committees during the interim of General 

Convention. . . , 

As so often happens, this extreme gesture of intolerance marked 
Feelings the beginning of a reaction, and a decline in partisan bitterness 

55 may be seen as beginning at this point. The older High Church- 

Sotel men and Tractarians gradually got over the fright occasioned by 

the withdrawal of Bishop Cummins and his followers, and the 
more liberal wing of the Evangelical party began to see the incon 
sistency of seeking to broaden the Church in one direction at the 
same time they were trying to narrow it in another. This change ot 
attitude may be marked very clearly in the case of Dr. William 
Reed Huntington, a liberal Evangelical, who subsequently became 
rector of Grace Church, New York. At the General Convention 
of 1871, Huntington had urged the specific prohibition of ritualis 
tic practices on the ground that doing so would emphasize what 
he evidently suspected, that the Ritualists were not honorable men 
and had very little respect for their ordination vows. In 1874 he 
supported the ritual canon and opposed the consecration of Sey 
mour. But when De Koven was elected he advocated his confirma 
tion. He explained this on the ground that he had more confidence 
in De Koven's personal integrity than he had in Dr. Seymour's, 
but in view of his stand in 1871, it would seem that his own 
opinions had changed also. 

In 1878, four years after his rejection by the General Convention 
as Bishop of Illinois, Dr. Seymour became Bishop of Springfield, 
a diocese that had been called into being by the division of the 
Diocese of Illinois, his election having been confirmed without 
difficulty. In 1889, Father Grafton, with whom the mere suspicion 



of an association had proven so damaging to Seymour in 1874, 
was consecrated Bishop of Fond du Lac- 
While the foregoing conflict was going on, a number of devel 
opments took place which should be noticed before we proceed 
to the consideration of a later period. The fact that General 
Seminary came to be regarded as a center of Anglo-Catholicism 
cost it considerable support, and before the Civil War it had become 
largely dependent upon contributions from the Diocese of New 
York, most of its endowment having been dissipated by poor 
management or necessity. It seemed only fair, therefore, that the 
control of New York over the Seminary should be increased, and 
in 1859 a committee was appointed to consider the desirability of 
severing the Seminary's connection with General Convention alto 
gether. The Civil War prevented this committee from reporting 
in 1862, but in 1865 it recommended increasing the control of 
New York over the institution by raising the number of clergy 
and the size of the contributions required to elect a trustee. These 
changes were approved by the Convention but they were not ac 
cepted by the trustees and so never became a part of the Seminary's 
constitution. By 1868, when the non-concurrence of the trustees 
was reported to General Convention, the financial condition of 
the Seminary had improved, and though some alteration in the 
mode of election was made in 1877, the trustees were continued 
essentially upon the old basis until 1883, when the proposals of 
1865 were reversed, and the Seminary was brought into a much 
closer relationship with General Convention. The amendment 
then adopted provided for fifty elected members of the Board, half 
of whom were to be chosen by General Convention and half by 
the several dioceses upon the basis of their previous contributions. 
All of the bishops and the Dean of the Seminary were to be ex 
officio trustees. The Dean at this time was the Very Rev. Eugene 
Augustus Hoffman, and under his administration the Seminary 
rapidly attained a high degree of economic prosperity, largely 
through the generous gifts of himself and his family. 

While the General Seminary was undergoing these various 
changes and proposed changes in its constitution, two new sem 
inaries of the Church were being founded. The first of these, the 
Philadelphia Divinity School, was founded by Bishop Potter of 
Pennsylvania in 1861, when the Civil War made it impossible to 

of General 

Two New 


Free Churches 


send candidates from Pennsylvania to the Virginia ^Seminary. 
Originally Evangelical in its associations, the Divinity School 
Inter came under the influence of the Liberal Movement. The Very 
Rev. George Emlen Hare served as its first Dean. The other 
seminary was founded at Cambridge, Massachusetts, as the result 
of a gift of $100,000 which was made by a wealthy Bostonian, 
Benjamin Tyler Reed, for the founding of an Episcopal Theo 
logical School which should "distinctly set forth the great doctrine 
of Justification by Faith alone in the Atonement and Righteousness 
of Christ, as taught in ... the Thirty-Nine Articles, according to 
the natural construction of the said Articles (Scripture alone being 
the standard) as adopted at the Reformation, and not according to 
any tradition, doctrine, or usage prior to said Reformation not 
contained in Scripture." This sounds like the language of the 
older Evangelicals but, in fact, the new seminary became from the 
first a center of the new Liberal Movement which was then de 
veloping as the most recent expression of the more Protestant tra 
dition of the Church. Its first Dean was the Very Rev. John Seely 
Stone. Because of its liberal position, it performed valuable services 
as an early center of the science of Higher Criticism. 

A new attempt at introducing monasticism into the American 
Episcopal Church was made in 1865 when two American priests, 
Father Grafton and Father Prescott, were professed in the English 
Society of Saint John the Evangelist. After remaining in England 
for several years, they returned to this country but subsequently 
withdrew from the Society because of a disagreement as to their 
proper relations with the American bishops. The Order continued 
its work in America, however, and other priests were sent over. 
There was a growing tendency throughout this period towards 
the use of "free churches" as distinct from those with rented pews. 
The earliest free churches were established as city missions for 
work among the poor in the larger cities, and were supported by 
the dioceses or by missionary societies. It would appear that the 
first free churches which were self-supporting were Muhlenberg's 
Church of the Holy Communion in New York and the Church 
of the Advent in Boston, both of which were founded in 1844. 
The movement spread rapidly after the Civil War, being gener 
ally supported by the Anglo-Catholics. In 1877 an effort was made 
to secure the passage of a canon forbidding the consecration of 


churches with rented pews, but the General Convention resolved 
that it was inexpedient to act upon the subject at that time. 

There was also a movement on foot for the organization of 
smaller dioceses. The tradition that a diocese should cover a Small 
whole state had been broken by the organization of the Diocese Dioceses 
of Western New York in 1838, but it was some time before any 
other states were divided, and the general tendency to have 
dioceses cover a large area continued. As Church membership 
increased, this led to the severance of the bishop from any paro 
chial connection and there were some to whom such a separation 
seemed undesirable. It was also felt that the organization of small 
dioceses would allow for more intensive work and, perhaps, for 
a greater variety of usages also. This movement did lead to the 
division of a number of large dioceses, but the efforts of its spon 
sors to obtain specific canonical sanction for it were unsuccessful. 


.HE General Convention of 1874 should probably be regarded 
Later as Barking the high point of the conflict which necessarily resulted 

Development from the introduction, through the Oxford Movement, of a new 
of Ritualism force into the life of the Church. The ritual canon which was 
passed in that year was obviously unenforceable, and no serious 
attempt seems to have been made to enforce it. The use of ritual 
has continued to spread steadily until, in some respects at least, 
it has come fairly close to fulfilling the prophecy made by Bishop 
Hopkins in 1867 that "Ritualism will grow into favor by degrees 
until it becomes the prevailing system." It cannot actually be said 
to have done this, for as the ritualistic system has spread it has 
come to be divided along lines that are not always easy to under 
stand. Some practices, such as the use of a solid altar with at least 
two candles upon it and the employment of vested choirs, have 
become general, while other customs, such as the use of incense, 
which would not seem to be necessarily more radical, are still 
regarded as being as characteristic of extreme Anglo-Catholicism 
as are Eucharistic Adoration, the Invocation of Saints, and other 
practices which do have a definite doctrinal significance. 

While, however, the distinction thus drawn is not altogether 
understandable in some of its details, it serves as a whole to illus 
trate the new attitude towards Ritualism which began to develop 
after 1874. In the earlier stages of the controversy, as in the debate 
over the older Tractarianism, it was assumed by the champions 
of both sides that the Church must either be wholly Catholic or 
wholly Protestant, so that the dispute took on the aspect of a life 
and death struggle between the two parties. When, however, 
De Koven and Smith made their pleas for comprehensiveness in 
1874, they opened men's minds to the possibility that the two 
traditions might be able to live together in a working unity, 




chafing each other, no doubt, but also learning from one another 
and enriching one another. 

This possibility was strengthened by a development that was 
taking place at the same time in the Protestant wing of the Ri SC of 
Church. This development was known in various phases as the Liberalism 
Liberal Movement and the Broad Church Movement, but it 
should probably be described as a tendency rather than a move 
ment, for it lacked the definiteness of aim and principle that one 
generally associates with the latter term. Those who were under 
its influence often differed widely in their positive beliefs, but they 
agreed with one another in their desire to make the Church as 
comprehensive as possible and in their tendency to minimize the 
importance of definite dogma, though to varying degrees. They 
tended also to take a sympathetic attitude towards the prevailing 
tendencies of contemporary thought, such as the belief in evolu 
tion, and they were responsible for introducing the so-called 
"Higher Criticism" of the Bible into the Church, though not all 
of them were willing to accept its results. By "Higher Criticism," 
it should be observed, is meant the scientific investigation of the 
original sources of the Biblical narratives with a view to ascer 
taining their relation to the actual events described and their 
consequent reliability. It necessarily conflicted with the old belief 
in the verbal inspiration of Scripture, though not inconsistent 
with less definite ^theories of inspiration, and it was at first re 
garded by many as likely to undermine the Christian Faith. 

Like the Oxford Movement, Liberalism had its origin in Eng 
land, and its transplantation to this country proved a longer pro- rhc Essays 
cess than the introduction of Tractarianism. It had certain affini- and R 
ties with some earlier liberalizing tendencies of the English 1855 
Church, including eighteenth-century Latitudinarianism, which 
had also sought to minimize doctrinal differences and to achieve a 
rationalistic approach to Christianity. In its modern phase it 
obtained its first public expression with the publication in 1855 
of a volume of Essays and Reviews by a group of English Church 
men. The essays represented various viewpoints and it was ex 
pressly stated in the preface that each writer should be held 
responsible for his own contribution only, but the collection 
showed a general tendency to take a scientific attitude towards 
Christianity and to try to fit it into the general scheme of historical 



The First 

development. Some of the essayists indicated their acceptance of 
the results of Higher Criticism, and this fact caused the collection 
to be bitterly attacked by many conservative Churchmen, for that 
particular approach to the Bible was still largely confined to Ger 
many. The publication seems, however, to have been not alto 
gether unacceptable to the powers which controlled the English 
Church, for Frederick Temple, who edited the series and con 
tributed one of the more conservative essays, was made Bishop 
of London some years later and subsequendy elevated to the 
Archbishopric of Canterbury. In this country the Essays were 
condemned in a Pastoral Letter, written by Bishop Mcllvaine 
with the sanction of the House of Bishops, which declared that 
Rationalism had no place in the Church. 4 

A few years later the liberal tendency -was given a yet stronger 
expression in England with the publication, in 1861, of a Com 
mentary on Romans and in 1862 of the first volume of a work 
called The Pentateuch and Joshua Critically Explained., both by 
the Right Rev. John William Colenso, Bishop of Natal in Africa. 
In these works the author, besides adopting the methods of 
Higher Criticism, voiced some liberal views on theology, indi 
cating his disbelief in eternal punishment, asserting that Christ's 
Atonement was effected by reconciling us to God through a 
supreme display of love and not by means of vicarious punish 
ment, and denying the literal inerrancy of Scripture. For these 
and other opinions that were supposed to be contrary to the offi 
cial teaching of the Church of England Colenso was brought to 
trial before the Most Rev. Robert Gray, Metropolitan of South 
Africa, and deposed. There was, however, some question about 
Bishop Gray's jurisdiction in the case, so Colenso defied the sen 
tence and was supported by the civil authorities in doing so. 

The opinion of the Church appears generally to have been in 
favor of the Metropolitan's action. The General Convention of 
the American Episcopal Church in 1865 approved it and when 
all the bishops in communion with the Church of England were 
invited to attend the first Lambeth Conference it was generally 
understood that their chief object in assembling was to do like 
wise. As Colenso was being supported by the British govern 
ment, however, the bishops of the Established Church felt that 
his condemnation by the conference might prove embarrassing 

w -s 

cc ^ 


to themselves, and so they carefully arranged an agenda in which 
there was no place for the South African question to come up. 
A discussion of the subject was finally forced upon the meeting 
by the colonial bishops and by Bishop Hopkins from the United 
States, but the conference declined to take any action. The 
assembly was chiefly important as being the first of the frequent 
conferences of Anglican bishops which have been held at Lam 
beth since then, and which have helped to strengthen the sense 
of unity within the Anglican communion. 

Though Bishop Colenso and the Essayists undoubtedly had 
some sympathizers in the United States, Liberalism did not exert The American 
an important influence upon the history of the American Epis- Qoness 
copal Church until the last quarter of the nineteenth century, 
possibly because the minds of most Churchmen in the preceding 
quarter century were taken up by the bitter conflict over ritual. 
One of the first expressions of its influence was the organization 
of the American Church Congress, which held its first session 
in 1874. It was an imitation of an English institution of the same 
name which had been founded some years previously. Its object 
was to obtain a free discussion of issues which were before the 
Church, in an assembly which was not, like General Convention, 
compelled to take definite action. For this reason, it naturally 
sought the participation of men from all parties, but its original 
sponsors were most of them Liberals. Its first session was held in 
New York shortly before the meeting of General Convention, and 
Bishop Horatio Potter was asked to preside. He declined, express 
ing a strong disapproval of the Congress. Nevertheless, it was able 
to secure the support of a representative group of clergymen, 
including, besides Liberals such as Bishop Clark of Rhode Island, 
Phillips Brooks, William Reed Huntington, and Edward A. 
Washburn, some older Evangelicals such as Alexander H. Vinton 
and Heman Dyer; conservative High Churchmen, such as Bishop 
Williams of Connecticut; Tractarians like Professor W. D. 
Wilson of Cornell; and two prominent missionary bishops 
Bishop Whipple of Minnesota and Bishop Hare of the Indian 
Jurisdiction of Niobrara. The papers delivered at its first meeting 
dealt with a timely topic of the "Limits of Legislation as to Doc 
trine and Ritual" and one of the speakers, the Rev. John Cotton 


Smith, as has already been noted, anticipated De Koven's more 
brilliant plea for comprehensiveness. 

Liberalism of any kind is necessarily individualistic and the 
Phillips liberalism which developed in the Church at this time found its 

Brooks c hief expression, even more than earlier movements, in the per- 

sonalitics of a few great leaders. Its most famous representative 
was unquestionably the Rev. Phillips Brooks, rector of Trinity 
Church, Boston, and subsequently Bishop of Massachusetts A 
native of Massachusetts, Brooks had obtained his theological edu 
cation at the Virginia Seminary, and had begun his ministry in 
Philadelphia where he served as rector, first of the Church of 
the Advent, and later of the Church of the Holy Trinity His 
brilliance as a preacher brought him into prominence almost from 
the first, but his greatest celebrity was attained after his removal 
to Boston, where he was called in 1869. While there he became 
one of the most famous and influential American preachers of 
any denomination, in an age of great preachers. 

Brooks had been brought up under Evangelical influences, his 
early religious training having been supervised by two of the most 
prominent of the older Evangelicals, the Rev. John S. Stone and 
the Rev. Alexander H. Vinton, successive rectors at St. Paul's 
Church, Boston. As his mind matured, however, he became more 
in sympathy with the trend of contemporary thought and de 
veloped a more liberal theology. In his personal views, though he 
was averse to any definite dogmatic formulations, he does not 
seem to have departed very far from orthodox Christianity but 
he was disposed to show his sympathy and fellowship ^ with Lib 
erals of all degrees, even inviting two prominent Unitarian clergy 
men to be present and receive Communion at the consecration of 
Trinity Church, which was rebuilt under his rectorship. When 
he was elected Bishop of Massachusetts in 1892, this proceeding 
was made a ground for objecting to his consecration by Bishop 
Seymour of Springfield, whose own election as Bishop of Illinois 
had been opposed for a different reason in 1874. Brooks' election 
was, however, confirmed without difficulty, the confirmation being 
supported not only by the Liberals and the Evangelicals, but by a 
majority of the High Churchmen and Anglo-Catholics also, in 
cluding Bishop William Croswell Doane of Albany, a son of the 
second Bishop of New Jersey, and the Rev. Arthur C. A. Hall, 


rector of the Church of the Advent, who had opposed Brooks' 
election in the diocesan convention but could see no valid reason 
why he should not be consecrated after he had been elected. 
Father Hall, who was a member of the Society of St. John the 
Evangelist, was recalled to England by his Order as a measure of 
discipline for his stand upon this question. He subsequently with 
drew from the Society and returned to this country where he 
became Bishop of Vermont. 

Less famous than Brooks outside of the Church, but probably 
exerting a more lasting influence within it, were Bishop Henry Bishop Henry 
Codman Potter of New York and Rev. William Reed Hunting- CPotter 
ton, rector of Grace Church, New York. Potter was a son of 
Bishop Alonzo Potter of Pennsylvania and a nephew of Bishop 
Horatio Potter, his own predecessor in the See of New York. 
Before his election as bishop, he had served for fifteen years as 
rector of Grace Church, where he had succeeded the Rev. 
Thomas House Taylor in 1868. Under his leadership Grace Parish 
developed into an early example of what came to be called an 
"institutional church," that is, a Church which supplemented its 
religious activity with a number of social institutions. Like so 
many new things in the Church, this type of parish probably had 
its origin in the work of William Augustus Muhlenberg, who, 
as we have seen in an earlier chapter, surrounded his Church of 
the Holy Communion with various charitable enterprises. The 
general interest in social work which developed at the turn of the 
century caused the institutional parish to become common in our 
larger cities, and its popularity has only begun to decline in recent 
years. One of its earliest exponents, after Muhlenberg, was the Rev. 
W. S. Rainsford, rector of St. George's Church, New York City. 

In 1883 Henry Potter was elected assistant bishop of New 
York, and, even before his uncle's death in 1887, he was in active 
charge of the diocese. He had been the choice of the Low Church 
men, in opposition to the Rev. Morgan Dix, the rector of Trinity 
Church, but he made a scrupulous effort to be thoroughly non- 
partisan and his administration of the diocese was marked by a 
breadth and tolerance that were unusual for the time. In 1884 
he had to deal with the case of the Rev. R. Heber Newton, the 
rector of All Souls' Church, who had delivered and published 
some sermons in which he advocated the Higher Criticism of the 

The Briggs 

Influence of 
Lux Mundi 


Bible. For this he was presented to Bishop Horatio Potter by two 
clergymen in 1883, and the case shortly fell from that Bishop's 
hands into those of his nephew. Henry Potter requested that New 
ton desist from giving lectures on Higher Criticism in his parish, 
for the sake of peace, while admitting that he probably had no 
authority to compel him to do so. Newton complied with this 
request, though reluctantly, and the Bishop proceeded to pigeon 
hole the presentment. 

In 1899 he gave a more definite sanction to Higher Criticism 
by ordaining to the Priesthood the Rev. Charles Augustus Briggs, 
professor of Biblical Theology at Union Theological Seminary. 
Professor Briggs had been a pioneer exponent in this country of 
the ne\v methods of Biblical criticism, and had been deposed from 
the Presbyterian ministry as a result. Having always entertained 
a certain admiration for the Episcopal Church, he applied to 
Bishop Potter for ordination. Though a number of English 
Anglo-Catholics had lately indicated their acceptance of Higher 
Criticism in a collection of essays called Lux Mundi, edited by 
Canon Charles Gore, most of their party in this country were 
still opposed to the science, and the proposed ordination of one 
of its chief exponents excited a good deal of criticism. Neverthe 
less, he was ordained, and the incident may be regarded as having 
settled for the American Episcopal Church a point which had 
already been determined in England: That the literal inerrancy 
of Scripture was not an official teaching of this Church and that 
its ministers were at liberty to undertake a critical study of the 
Bible, provided their doing so did not lead them to deny doc 
trines that were supposed to be officially approved. The subse 
quent heresy trials of this period, which we will notice presently, 
though they involved questions of Higher Criticism, did not turn 
upon the merits of that science per se, but upon certain theological 
opinions at which the accused ministers had arrived by means 
of it. 

This does not mean that all controversy on the subject ended 
with the Briggs ordination. The development of the science 
within the Episcopal Church continued to meet with strong oppo 
sition and for some time Cambridge was the only seminary in 
which it was admitted. Two of the professors of that institution, 
Nash and Steenstra, were among the earliest Higher Critics of the 



Episcopal Church. The position taken by Anglo-Catholics under 
the influence of Lux Mundi, that a belief in the verbal inspiration 
of the Bible was not necessary to the acceptance of Catholic tra 
dition, however, gave Higher Criticism a bi-partisan support 
which made possible its acceptance without the bitter conflict that 
has attended its progress in some other denominations. 

Bishop Potter was not the type of man who is broad in one 
direction only. In the same year in which he pigeon-holed the 
charges against Newton, he exposed himself to criticism from 
another quarter by professing Father James O. S. Huntington as 
the first member of the Order of the Holy Cross. The year fol 
lowing, he handled the case of the Rev. Arthur Ritchie, rector of 
St. Ignatius' Church, much as he had that of Dr. Newton. Father 
Ritchie was an advanced Ritualist who had already exposed him 
self to the censure of the Right Rev. William E. McLaren, the 
Anglo-Catholic Bishop of Chicago. In New York his introduc 
tion of ceremonies not permitted by the Prayer Book induced 
Bishop Potter to refuse to visit St. Ignatius'. A correspondence 
ensued in which Ritchie agreed to give up the practices if the 
bishop would waive the canonical question of his right to forbid 
them, and to this Potter agreed. In the present age of liturgical 
freedom, it may not seem that such a proceeding displayed any 
great latitude of mind, but it was more of a concession than 
would have been made by most bishops at that time. It is worth 
noting that Father Ritchie's position was criticized both by Bishop 
Seymour and by Father Grafton. 

When Potter was elected bishop, he was succeeded at Grace 
Church by William Reed Huntington, who previously had been 
rector at Worcester. In his later years Huntington acquired the 
title of "First Presbyter of the Church," largely because of his lead 
ership in the Prayer Book revision which was carried out during 
the eighties, though there were a number of other grounds on 
which he might have claimed the title. He was one of the most 
influential advocates of this Church's participation in the move 
ment for Christian unity which began to show itself at that period, 
and he was also a leader in the development of new Church insti 
tutions which was a characteristic of the day. He developed the 
institutional side of Grace Church even more than had Dr. Pot 
ter, and he was the chief advocate of the revival of the Order of 

and the 
Order of the 
Holy Cross 

William Reed 


Growth of 


Deaconesses. He also served on the fabric committee of the 
Cathedral of St. John the Divine, first projected by Bishop Horatio 
Potter though in this position his inexperience, according to his 
bio-rapher, the Rev. J. W. Suter, caused a number of mistakes 
which had to be rectified at considerable expense later. 

Huntington and Potter were Liberals of a conservative stamp, 
whose essential orthodoxy was never questioned by anyone but 
there were some other Liberals of the period who felt them 
selves compelled to advocate opinions that were held to be con 
trary to the official teaching of the Church. One of these the Rev. 
Howard MacQueary, published in 1890 a book called The Evo- 
lution of Man and Christianity, in which he claimed the right 
to interpret the articles in the Creeds relating to the Resurrection 
and the Virgin Birth in a different way from that m which they 
have been generally understood. He was suspended by Bishop 
Bedell of Ohio and resigned his ministry. A more famous case 
involving a similar issue was that of the Rev. Algernon Sidney 
Crapsey, rector of St. Andrew's Church, Rochester, who, in the 
course of some parochial lectures in 1905, expressed his disbelief 
in the Virgin Birth. He was brought to trial before a court pre 
sided over by Bishop Walker of western New York and convicted 
of teaching doctrines contrary to those of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church. He was suspended from his ministry, and when the ver 
dict of the diocesan court was upheld by the newly created Pro 
vincial Court of Review, he resigned his office altogether. 

The development of Liberalism within the Church did not 
interrupt the advance of Anglo-Catholicism. In some respects it 
probably fostered it, softening the opposition with its theory of 
comprehensiveness, and, in its more radical forms, giving the 
conservative members of the Church something else to worry 
about besides the threat of a movement towards Roman Cathol 
icism. Ritualism, as we have seen, continued to spread, and as 
some of the more conservative ritualistic practices came into gen 
eral use, the more radical representatives of the movement became 
more daring, reviving an increasing number of mediaeval customs, 
imitating those of modern Roman Catholicism and even, some 
times, making liturgical experiments on their own account. Reli 
gious brotherhoods and sisterhoods, especially the latter, increased 
steadily, though not very rapidly. Repeated efforts were made to 



secure their sanction by General Convention, but for a long time 
these did not meet with much success, though a number of com 
mittees were appointed on the subject. A canon governing religious 
communities was not passed until 1913. By then, they had be 
come so settled a feature of Church life that it was a question of 
regulating rather than of encouraging them. To provide a means 
of discussing various aspects of the Catholic viewpoint, an Anglo- 
Catholic Congress was created, resembling the Church Congress. 

As the Anglo-Catholics tended to regard the terms "Protestant" 
and "Catholic" as antithetical, the spread of their movement 
naturally led to a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the pres 
ent name of the Church. Proposals to change the name have been 
offered at nearly every General Convention since 1877, but none 
has been adopted. In 1910 a motion to omit the word "Protestant" 
from the title page of the Book of Common Prayer and identify 
the Episcopal Church as a "portion" of "the Holy Catholic 
Church" was lost in the House of Deputies only by a technicality, 
a plurality of both orders favoring it, but a number of dioceses 
being divided, and consequently, according to the rules of the 
House, being counted in the negative. No proposal for a complete 
legal change of name has, however, ever come to nearly so close a 
vote. Such a change would be exceedingly difficult, as nearly all 
of the agencies of the Church, local as well as national, have the 
phrase "Protestant Episcopal" in their charters. There has, more 
over, been no agreement as to what name should be adopted if 
the present one were rejected. Those which have been most often 
proposed are "The American Church," "The Church in Amer 
ica," "The American Catholic Church," "The American Episco 
pal Church," and "The Episcopal Church." 

A natural corollary to the broadening of the idea of the Church 
which took place at this period was the development of an in 
creased interest in the possibility of union with other denomina 
tions, an interest which corresponded with a general concern with 
the problem of Christian unity that began to manifest itself at 
that period. In dealing with this problem, it was necessary to con 
sider both of the two major types of Christianity, Catholic and 
Protestant, for if the Episcopal Church is to play an important 
role in the reunion of Christendom, assuming that such a develop 
ment takes place, it will probably be because of its ability to look 

Changes in 
the Name of 
the Church 

Interest in 




Committee on 
the Swedish 

The Resolution 
of 1865 

in both directions and to maintain some contact with both tradi 
tions. In Western Christianity the most important representative 
of the Catholic tradition is the Roman Catholic Church, but at 
present a working compromise with this body does not appear 
to represent a practicable ideal. Efforts towards Catholic reunion 
have, therefore, for the present to be concentrated upon coopera 
tion with the Eastern Church, and with such western groups as 
retain the episcopal succession and other features of the Catholic 
tradition without submitting to the Pope. 

As early as 1856 a committee was appointed by General Con 
vention to examine into the validity of the orders of the Swedish 
Church. As we have seen, Swedish ministers had been accepted 
in the colonial Church without question, but their numbers had 
hardly been sufficient to establish a general rule, and no definite 
action had been taken to bring the two Churches into communion. 
The committee of 1856 entered into correspondence with the King 
of Sweden, but apparently never made a final report. Another 
committee appointed on the same subject in 1892 functioned until 
1901, when it reported that, as the enquiry had not been requested 
by the denomination concerned, it was causing a certain amount 
of irritation and impairing the cordial relations of the two 
Churches. As a result of overtures made by the Lambeth Confer 
ence, there has been inter-communion between them since 1920. 

In 1865 a resolution was passed expressing sympathy with the 
efforts of a party in the Italian Church to bring about a reforma 
tion, and another was adopted, by the House of Deputies, to the 
effect "That all those branches of the Apostolic Church which 
accept the Holy Scriptures and the Niceo-Constantinopolitan 
Creed, and which reject the usurpations and innovations of the 
Bishop of Rome are called ... to renew those primitive relations 
which the Roman schism has interrupted." This resolution was 
not exactly calculated to improve our relations with the Roman 
Catholic Church, but it did represent a gesture towards unity 
with other Catholics. In 1874 the House of Bishops appointed a 
committee to keep up a "fraternal correspondence" with the "Old 
Catholics," a group which had withdrawn from the Roman 
Catholic Church after the Council of the Vatican. 

The first important move towards a revival of interest in re 
union on the Protestant side was made by Dr. Huntington in 



1870, when he published "an essay towards unity" which he 
called The Church Idea. In this work, after setting forth his ideal 
o the Christian Church, he proposed a "quadrilateral," or four 
fold platform which he thought should be made the basis of pro 
posals for unity by the Anglican communion. Its four points were 
the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God, the Apostles' and Nicene 
Creeds as the rule of Faith, the two sacraments of Baptism and 
Holy Communion, and the episcopate as the keystone of govern 
mental unity. The theory of the Church thus put forward was 
not a new one, but its reduction to four points made it a con 
venient basis for popular discussion and official action. The 
"quadrilateral" was accepted in substance in a declaration adopted 
by the House of Bishops in 1886, at a meeting of the General 
Convention in Chicago. Their declaration was reaffirmed with 
some modifications by the next Lambeth Conference, and was 
thenceforth known as the "Chicago-Lambeth Declaration." It was 
adopted by the House of Deputies in 1892. Its chief difficulty as 
a working basis for reunion is that it ranks as essential the major 
points in which the Episcopal Church differs from most Protestant 

In 1880 the House of Bishops appointed a committee to consider 
the validity of the Moravian episcopate. At the next convention 
this committee reported that it could not act because the question 
was before a committee of the Lambeth Conference. At the Con 
vention of 1886 a number of memorials were presented urging 
action favorable to Church unity. One of these was signed by over 
a thousand clergymen. The House of Deputies adopted a resolu 
tion offered by Phillips Brooks extending cordial greetings to the 
General Assembly of the Congregational Church which was also 
meeting in Chicago, but the Bishops refused to concur, on the 
surprising ground that they were then maturing plans for Church 
unity. Since that time it has, however, become customary for 
General Convention to send greetings to any important Christian 
assembly that happens to meet in the vicinity during its sessions. 
The deliberations of the Bishops resulted in the declaration con 
taining the quadrilateral. 

At the General Convention of 1904 a Joint Committee on Chris 
tian Unity was appointed and instructed to seek the cooperation 
of other Christian bodies on matters of common interest, such as 

Dr. Hunting- 
ton's Platform 

Committee on 
Unity, 1904 


Sabbath observance, the sanctity of marriage, and religious educa 
tion. In 1907 this committee was authorized to appoint a member 
to represent itself, but not the Church as a whole, at the Inter- 
Church Conference on Federation which was to be held the fol 
lowing year. That conference resulted in the organization of the 
National Federation of Churches, to secure the cooperation of 
such denominations as would participate upon points of mutual 
concern. At the next General Convention the Committees on 
Christian Unity and on Social Service were both authorized to 
send representatives to the Council of the Federation. In 1913 
this authorization was repeated, but a proviso was attached ex 
pressing the opinion that the sort of unity desired by Christ was 
the union of all His followers in one body. Since then the Epis 
copal Church has continued to cooperate with the Federal Council 
in some departments, but has never become a full participant. 

At the same time that the tendencies which we have been de- 
Thc Social scribing were working to widen the range of tolerated opinion 
Christian within the Church, other forces were working to broaden it in 
Movement anot h er way by increasing the fields of activity in which it sought 
to apply Christian principles. One incidental result of the sepa 
ration of Church and State, as it was adopted by most modern 
countries, was that the Church was expected to confine itself to 
the fields of personal religion and private morality, and to refrain 
from interfering with political, social, or economic problems, 
which were either to be handled by the State or left to work 
themselves out by natural laws. As a result of the intensification 
of economic problems and the appearance of energetic demands 
for social reform which marked the latter part of the nineteenth 
century, however, a movement developed, generally known in 
Europe as Christian Socialism and in this country as Social Chris 
tianity., which demanded the application of Christian teachings 
in the economic sphere. The general principles of this movement 
had been formulated, in this country, by John Woolman, an 
eighteenth-century Quaker, and it is probable that other individual 
Christian thinkers could be found who had done the same, but as 
they had no followers, their influence upon the development of 
Christian thought was not important. With the multiplication of 
demands for reform from secular sources, however, a Christian 
movement developed which eventually forced the issue upon the 



Resolutions on 
World Peace 

attention of the churches. One o the early advocates of this move 
ment in America was a Churchman, Professor Richard T. Ely, 
but its most influential leader was probably Walter Rauschenbusch, 
a professor in the Baptist Seminary at Rochester, New York. 

This movement did not directly influence the Episcopal Church 
to a very great extent, but the general agitation relating to social Growth of a 

problems that took place eventually forced them upon her atten- ? OC1 ? 1 S^ 00 ? 
^ c i ii- i i r <~>\ i s-> in the Church 

tion. One or the papers delivered at the first Church Congress, 

that by Professor Wilson, dealt with "The Mutual Christian Obli 
gations of Capital and Labor," and while it cannot be said to have 
made any very important contribution to the problem, it did show 
an awakening interest in social questions which was, in time, to 
overcome the traditional aloofness of the Episcopal Church from 
all questions of a political or semi-political nature. 

The first of the new social ideals to attract the attention of Gen 
eral Convention was that of world peace. In 1892 the Convention 
adopted a petition to be addressed to the Christian rulers of the 
world in favor of the use of peaceful arbitration for the settlement 
of international disputes. In 1898 a joint resolution was addressed 
to the Czar of Russia expressing gratification at his calling of the 
first Hague Conference, and voicing a hope that it would lead 
to a reduction of armaments and the establishment of an inter 
national court. A resolution for the same purpose, introduced by 
Mr. Stotsenberg, a lay delegate from Indiana, had branded war 
as "cruel, inhuman, and un-Christian," but this language was too 
strong for the Convention, and a milder form was substituted. 
In 1904 the General Convention, sitting in Boston, addressed a 
communication to the International Peace Congress, which was 
meeting in the same city, expressing sympathy with its work. At 
the next Convention a resolution of thankfulness for the second 
Hague Conference was passed, and prayers were offered for its 
success. In 1916, less than a year before the entry of the United 
States into the World War, a joint committee was appointed to 
further the ends of peace and to cooperate with the World Alli 
ance for Promoting International Peace through the Churches. 

The labor problem was later in arousing the official concern 
of the Church. In 1901 a Joint Committee on Capital and Labor Committee on 
was appointed to study the aims of the labor movement, investi- Capital and 
gate particular disputes, and act as an arbitrator if requested. In 


The Divorce 

Revision o 
the Prayer 
Book and 

1904 it made a report which contained a number of vague gen 
eralizations but did recommend specific legislation against child 
labor. In 1910 its title was changed to Committee on Christian 
Social Service. 

Marriage and divorce present a social pk>blem that, because 
o its close relation to personal morality, has always been consid 
ered as lying within the field of action permitted to the Church. 
In the Episcopal Church the traditional policy has always been to 
oppose all divorce except for adultery, and to oppose remarriage, 
except in the case of the innocent party to such a divorce. In 1868 
this policy had been enacted into a canon, but no definite pro 
cedure had been provided for its enforcement. As public opinion 
became alarmed at the increase of divorce in the last quarter of 
the nineteenth century, efforts were made to obtain a more ade 
quate canon on the subject. In 1886 both houses took action, but 
they could not agree upon the details of the canon and so the 
question was referred to the next Convention. The Deputies re 
solved not to abandon the question until a satisfactory canon was 
passed, as they felt that they could thus make a contribution 
towards saving "American civilization, decaying already at its 
roots." Nevertheless, no canon was agreed upon until 1904, when 
one was passed affirming the old principle and providing a process 
of enforcement. 

One important indication of the growing harmony in the 
Church after 1874 was the success of the Prayer Book revision that 
was brought to a conclusion in 1892. By then the Prayer Book 
of 1789 had been in use for slightly over a century, and until the 
revision was commenced no important changes had been made 
in it. In the first part of the century the attachment of Church 
men of all parties to the book had prevented any strong demand 
for revision. In the middle years, Muhlenberg and a few others 
had asked for greater liturgical freedom, but with the increasing 
intensity of party feeling, it was evident to most of the leaders of 
the Church that any effort at revision would only precipitate a 
bitter conflict. After the crisis had passed, and party feeling began 
to cool off, demands for liturgical change increased until the 
General Convention of 1880, on motion of Dr. Huntington, ap 
pointed a joint committee to consider the propriety of revising the 
Prayer Book with a view to liturgical enrichment and increased 


flexibility. Huntington was not only the chief sponsor of the 
measure, but he proved to be the most active member of the com 
mittee, which presented a complete revision to the Convention of 
1886 in the form of a "Book Annexed" to its report. When this 
book was recommitted, however, as not meeting the wishes of the 
Convention, he withdrew and the work was completed by others. 
It was finally approved in 1892 and remained in general use until 
1928, so that it should be familiar to most readers. It did not in 
volve any fundamental change from the Book of 1789, but it was 
enriched with some additional prayers and canticles, and made 
slightly more flexible. 

In die same year that it gave its final approval to the new 
Prayer Book, General Convention appointed a committee to re 
vise the constitution. The first report of this committee was not 
approved and the revision was not fully completed until 1904, 
though most of the amendments were approved three years 
earlier. The chief changes were to recognize the ofEce of Presiding 
Bishop which had theretofore existed simply by a rule of the 
upper house, to provide for the creation of provinces, and to 
authorize the House of Bishops to set up missionary jurisdictions 
on its own responsibility. 

The desire for change which manifested itself in these revisions 
was shown also in the creation of various new agencies for carry- The Order of 
ing on the work of the Church. In the formation of these institu- De aconesses 
tions there appeared generally to be a twofold motive: to revive 
some institution that had existed in other ages or branches of the 
Catholic Church, but had been discontinued in the Episcopal 
Church, and to provide a means of meeting the new problems that 
confronted the Church. Ever since the Muhlenberg Memorial 
there had been agitation in the Church for the creation of some 
agency to utilize the services of women, though the Church had, 
in fact, been using their services all along. Gradually the agitation 
crystallized into a demand for the revival of the primitive order 
of deaconesses, and of sisterhoods. The latter was too definitely 
Catholic a measure to win official approval for some time, but the 
deaconesses obtained the powerful support of Dr. Huntington 
and a canon establishing their order was passed in 1889. They 
were to be unmarried women of good character over twenty-five 
years of age. They were not to work in a diocese except with the 


permission of the bishop, or in a parish without the consent of 
the rector. When not connected with a parish, they were to be at 
the command of the bishop in whose diocese they were located. 
A deaconess might resign from the order at any time, but unless 
her resignation was dictated by weighty reasons, she could not 
be reinstated later. 

A number of unofficial organizations were also created during 
Other this period. The Brotherhood of St. Andrew was organized in this 

Organizations country to enlist men in the work of the Church, and the Girls' 
Friendly Society, first organized in England, was brought into 
the United States in 1877. Its original object was to help girls of 
the working class, but it developed into a social and religious 
organization for young women of the Church. The Order of the 
Daughters of the King was organized in 1885 from a senior Bible 
class in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, New York City. The 
Church Mission of Help, which was started in New York in 1911, 
and has since spread into sixteen dioceses, was organized to pro 
vide skilled assistance for girls between sixteen and twenty-five 
whose personal problems were too great for them to solve alone. 
The provision in the revised constitution authorizing the cre 
ation of provinces was the result of an agitation for some sub 
division of the Church larger than dioceses, which had begun 
almost as soon as dioceses began to be organized in areas less 
extensive than a whole state. The new provision was not given 
effective expression, however, until 1907 when a canon was passed 
dividing the Episcopal Church in the United States and its pos 
sessions into eight provinces. The name given to the new unit 
would seem to imply a desire to imitate the large divisions which 
existed in the English Church and in the primitive Church, but 
the American provinces have very little resemblance to any others. 
They are governed by an elective synod to which few powers 
have as yet been entrusted, and they have no regular presiding 
officer. Except as providing a basis for the Provincial Court of 
Review, they have no important function. 

More significant, perhaps, than the creation of the provinces, 

Cathedral was the movement for building cathedrals. The first regularly 

Building organized cathedral in the American Episcopal Church was 

founded by Bishop Whipple in the Diocese of Minnesota. In the 

latter part of the century a number of dioceses built or started to 



build cathedrals on a more or less elaborate scale. The best-known 
and probably the most important are those at New York and 
Washington, neither of which is yet completed. 

With the development of more complicated methods of print 
ing and a cheaper mail service, the numerous small Church papers Periodicals 
mentioned in an earlier chapter tended to die out, though their 
function was to some extent taken over by the development of 
official diocesan papers. Of the larger periodicals. The Church 
man continued to carry on though, in its reaction from Catholi 
cism, it moved more and more towards a broad Church position. 
The Southern Churchman, which, like The Churchman, had been 
founded earlier in the century, continued to represent the older 
Evangelical point of view. The Living Church, published first at 
Chicago and later at Milwaukee, was founded to represent the 
Anglo-Catholic interests. Its editor, Mr. Frederic C. Morehouse, 
also served the Church in many other ways as a prominent layman. 
All of these periodicals performed the function of reporting the 
current news of the Church and commenting upon the events re 
ported. The Living Church Annual, which absorbed a number of 
older Church almanacs, continued the work, begun by Sword's 
Pocket Almanac in 1816, of recording the statistical history of the 
Church. During the decade of the nineties it was published as a 

The increase in the work among negroes and in the negro min 
istry which followed the Civil War caused the Church to be Provision for 
seriously confronted with the race problem. A number of Suffragans 
memorials were presented to General Convention from time to 
time by colored Church workers, complaining of discriminations 
against them in the southern dioceses, and, on the other hand, the 
white Churchmen of the South frequently urged the creation 
of a negro episcopate and even of a separate negro Church. When 
their proposals were turned down with the statement that the 
Church recognized no racial distinctions, they began an agitation 
for the creation of "suffragan bishops," a term applied to assistant 
bishops without the right of succession. This proposal was also 
turned down as long as it was based primarily upon the racial 
issue, but eventually the desire of some of the larger northern 
dioceses to have assistants who were not assured of succession 
made it possible to create the office without appearing to have the 


negroes chiefly in mind, and an amendment for the purpose, put 
forward in 1907, was finally approved in 1910. The suffragans 
were to have seats but not votes in the House of Bishops, and 
were to be eligible for election as diocesan bishops or coadjutors, 
the latter term having been applied in the revised constitution to 
assistant bishops of the older type. The new office has been widely 
used by dioceses desiring to elect an assistant bishop without com 
mitting themselves to making him their diocesan, but it has also 
served the purpose intended by its original sponsors in making 
possible the election of negro bishops. 

Two seminaries were added to the Church during this period. 
New Berkeley Divinity School, originally located at Middletown, but 

Seminaries recently moved to New Haven, was founded by Bishop Williams 
to serve as a center for Connecticut Churchmanship. Under its 
present Dean, the Rev. William Palmer Ladd, it has come to be 
identified with a program of liberal social teaching. Western 
Theological Seminary was founded at Chicago by Bishop Mc 
Laren as the result of a gift made especially for that purpose. It 
has lately been merged with the Seabury Divinity School, and 
the combined institution, known as Seabury-Western, is located 
at Evanston, Illinois. 


ERE it not for the desirability of adhering to a more or 
less chronological order, the story o the Church's missionary ex- Continuous 
pansion since the organization of the Domestic and Foreign Activity in 
Missionary Society might be told in a single chapter, or in sue- p^ issl n 
cessive chapters, for it has been a continuous process, only in 
directly affected by outside forces. New parties and movements 
may, of course, send new types of men into the mission field. 
They may increase or diminish the support given to the work by 
the Church at large, as they tend to emphasize or neglect the 
missionary spirit, or to stir up or allay party strife, but they affect 
the basic character of the work very little. The fundamental pur 
pose, to proclaim the Gospel through the Church, remains the 
same, and though differing theories of Churchmanship may in 
some measure affect missionary methods, these are determined to a 
much greater extent by the practical conditions under which the 
work has to be carried on. 

For the sake of convenience we stopped our relation of mis 
sionary history in Chapter Twelve at the beginning of the Civil Effects of the 
War. That conflict necessarily brought a serious f alling-o^ in the Cml War 
receipts of the Society, and this diminution was increased by the 
effects of religious partisanship. In 1862, when the strain of the 
war was not yet at its worst, the Domestic Committee reported 
that its receipts had decreased from $63,303 to $35,223 since 1860, 
but it had been informed that the Evangelical American Church 
Missionary Society had received $12,500 and employed twenty- 
eight missionaries in the domestic field during the current year. 
For three of the war years the Foreign Committee was unable 
to send any money at all to China, so that much of the work there 
had to be abandoned, and other fields also suffered seriously. 

The end of the war, though it led to a gradual recovery in the 




New Work 



Growth in 
the West 

Society's finances, also added something to the missionary respon 
sibilities of the Church. In the first place, the general ruin which 
followed in the South caused a number of parishes that had for 
merly been self-supporting to feel the need of assistance from 
the Missionary Society. In the second place, the creation of an 
immense body of free citizens, almost entirely illiterate and com 
pletely unaccustomed to independent action, furnished a problem 
which the combined resources of all the social agencies in the 
country proved inadequate to solve. An attempt on the part of the 
Church to solve the problem resulted in the creation of a Freed- 
man's Commission by the General Convention in 1865, with J. 
Brinton Smith as Secretary and General Agent, and Robert B. 
Minturn as Treasurer. The latter died shortly after the organiza 
tion of the Commission and was replaced by Stewart Brown. 
The year after its creation the Commission reported receipts of 
$26,108, and expenditures of $24,723. After a preliminary survey, 
it had started special schools at Richmond, Newbern, Norfolk, 
Talcott, and Petersburg in Virginia; Wilmington and Raleigh in 
North Carolina; Sumter and Winnsboro in South Carolina, and 
Louisville in Kentucky. It had also taken over a school founded 
by Dr. Lacey in Okolona, Mississippi, and had aided an orphanage 
founded by Mrs. Canfield in Memphis. 

As the year 1866 was the thirtieth anniversary of the organi 
zation of the Board of Missions, the Domestic Committee, in its 
report, gave a summary of the results that had been achieved in 
the intervening years. Ohio in 1836 had already become a fairly 
strong diocese, having forty-seven regular ministers besides four 
missionaries. In 1866 there were 102 ministers and two mission 
aries. A small allowance to that state had been made regularly in 
the interim and it was the opinion of the committee that "no 
other appropriations of the same magnitude have yielded more 
abundant spiritual or material returns." In Illinois, where there had 
been only six ministers besides Bishop Chase in 1836, there were, 
sixty years later, one hundred parishes and nearly one hundred 
ministers. Indiana had had three missionaries and four other 
ministers in 1836. Church representation increased until it in 
cluded forty parishes and thirty ministers. Michigan, which had 
had only three missionaries and no other officiating minister, now 
boasted sixty-eight parishes and sixty-four ministers. Wisconsin in 


1836 had only two ministers and three stations. In 1866 it was 
served by seventy parish ministers and eight missionaries. Minne 
sota, where there had been only one minister when Breck went 
there in 1853, had grown, under the leadership of Bishop Whipple, 
who was elected in 1859, until it had fifty parishes and twenty- 
seven ministers, seven of whom were employed by the Society. 

The first two missionaries to go to Iowa were sent there in 
1839. In 1866 there were thirty-seven ministers serving forty-six 
parishes in that state. In Missouri the number of ministers had in 
creased from four to thirty in thirty years. Kansas and Nebraska, 
an unknown region to the Society in 1836, now had, between them, 
twenty ministers. Tennessee's supply of clergymen had grown 
from ten to nearly thirty. Kentucky, with twenty-one ministers, 
had been fairly well developed in 1836. The number of its clergy 
men had since increased to thirty-five. The first missionary to 
California, the Rev. J. L. H. Ver Mehr, had been sent to San 
Francisco in 1849. When Bishop Kip went there in 1853 there 
were eight ministers. In 1866 there were thirty, and it was 
said that more could be supported if they could be obtained. The 
first service in the area covered by Oregon and Washington had 
been held in 1847, and the first missionary sent there in 1851. Now 
there were eleven parishes and nine ministers in the two terri 

In the region between the Old West and the Pacific the work 
of the Church was just beginning in 1866. In Colorado there were The New 
seven parishes and five ministers, only one of whom was sup- Wcst 
ported by the Society. In Nevada there were seven parishes but 
only two ministers, neither of whom was aided by the Society. 
Idaho and Dakota had one minister each. If any work was being 
done in the other parts of this region, the Domestic Committee 
did not know about it. 

As the foregoing review shows, the Old West had become well 
settled by this time and the Church there had become largely 
self-supporting, though a few missionaries were to be maintained 
by the Society in those states for some time to come. The West 
with which this chapter is chiefly concerned is that vast region 
of plain, desert, and mountain which lies between the Mississippi 
Valley and the Pacific Slope. This was the West of the romantic 
age, whose cowboys, miners, and desperadoes play so important 


a part in that popular fiction which is our modern substitute for 
folklore. It was, during most of the period, a region of great 
crudity, and yet, as time went on, it became an area of striking 
cultural contrasts also, for the wealth that was to be found in 
cattle-raising in the heyday of the industry brought to the plains 
many people of means and education from the East and from 

In 1866 George Maxwell Randall, who had been consecrated 
Rapid Bishop of Colorado, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the year 

Growth before, said of the last-named portion of his jurisdiction, "I can 

only report . . . that after diligent enquiry and research I have 
been unable to discover any such territory in these 'parts.'" 
Wyoming, in fact, did not have any official existence until 1868 
when it was first set apart as a territory of the United States. In 
that year Bishop Randall reported that he had found the region 
on his way west in the spring and remarked that it had been a 
wilderness until the Union Pacific was built. Since then, Cheyenne 
had become a flourishing, if disorderly, city, and a missionary, 
the Rev. J. W. Cook, had settled there. The bishop also mentioned 
holding service at Trinidad, Colorado, in a dance hall connected 
with a saloon, whose proprietor had not only offered the use of the 
hall but, as a special inducement, had promised to close his bar 
during the services. The fiddler's platform was used as a pulpit 
and a washstand became a reading desk. 

Twenty-two years later, when much of the region was still 
Cultural primitive, the Right Rev. Ethelbert Talbot, "the Bishop" of The 

Contrasts Virginian, was to write of arriving at a small Wyoming town one 

Saturday afternoon and attending a lecture on "Jerusalem and the 
Holy Land" delivered for the benefit of the local church by Miss 
Kent, "a member of a distinguished Scottish family." During the 
lecture, he said, "the cultivated speaker appealed several times to 
persons in her audience who had traveled over the same sacred 
grounds and could confirm her impressions." He also observed 
that he found Sir Robert Peel, a grandson of the English states 
man, living on a nearby ranch. In New Mexico, late in the seven 
ties, General Lew Wallace was to sit quietly writing his famous 
novel of ancient Rome and Jerusalem, oblivious of the fact that 
"Billy the Kid," a notorious local bad man, had sworn to shoot him 
at sight. 


Glamour, however, is generally the product of distance, either 
in space or time, and for the missionaries the West was mainly Organization 
a region of hard work, made inspiring only by that sense of otheWork 
apostleship which is the heritage of their calling. The shortage 
of men which had so hampered the work of the Church in the 
Old West pursued it still, and many a Macedonian Cry had to 
go unanswered because there was no one to heed it, but, thanks 
to the existence of the Missionary Society, and to a longer experi 
ence in collective action, the work was more systematically organ 
ized and more generally supported. The Church had by now 
consciously adopted the practice of using the episcopate as a mis 
sionary agency, and the General Convention of 1865, at which 
Bishop Randall was elected, divided the Far West, exclusive of 
California, into five missionary jurisdictions: Oregon and Wash 
ington; Arkansas and Indian Territory; Colorado, Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming; Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico; 
and Nebraska and Dakota. The first two of these jurisdictions 
were already being served by Bishops Scott and Lay. Randall was 
elected to the third, Mark Antony De Wolfe Howe to the fourth, 
and Robert Hooper Clarkson to the fifth. Howe declined to serve 
and Ozi William Whitaker was chosen to replace him at the 
next Convention. His jurisdiction, however, only included Nevada 
and Arizona, for at a special session in 1866 the House of Bishops 
had constituted Montana, Utah, and Idaho a separate jurisdiction 
under Daniel Sylvester Tuttle, and had attached New Mexico to 
Colorado and Wyoming under Bishop Randall 

It was, of course, impossible for these men to cover their large 
jurisdictions in more than a superficial manner, and they had great shortage of 
difficulty in obtaining missionaries to help them. In 1871 Bishop Ministers 
Randall wrote, "From the outset my greatest trial has been to 
obtain ministers ready to go to this land and stay there long 
enough to 'possess it.' " Appeals which he had made for five 
months after his consecration had obtained him one deacon. After 
spying about the country he returned to the East and, as the result 
of six months' effort, he obtained one other, but when he returned 
to his jurisdiction he met the first deacon coming east. At the 
time of writing, however, he had a few more. To correct this 
shortage of ministers by arranging for a local supply, efforts were 
made to establish colleges and theological schools in most of the 


jurisdictions. Bishop Clarkson, shortly after his election, reported 
the founding of a number of educational institutions, including 
the Nebraska College and Divinity School and the Omaha Col 
legiate Institute, and Bishop Randall in 1871 reported the found 
ing of a collegiate school for boys at Golden, Colorado. Most of 
these institutions were short-lived. 

The financial support given to the work, though less seriously 
Finances deficient than the supply of men, was also far from adequate. In 

1868 the financial embarrassments of the Missionary Society were 
so serious as to draw a resolution of sympathy from the House 
of Deputies. Its condition began to improve thereafter, and its 
receipts increased more or less steadily, but the increase was never 
rapid enough to keep up with the increased demands upon it, and 
many of the missionary jurisdictions had to be kept upon a short 
allowance. Bishop Randall in 1871 reported that he had received 
$106,000 for his work from all sources since his consecration, for 
which he could then show properties appraised at $114,600, even 
without allowing for the increase in real estate values. The annual 
allowance of the Board of Missions for paying missionaries in his 
three territories, however, was only $3,500, or, for each territory, 
less than half the amount that was currently appropriated for 
Maine. By way of contrast, he observed that the Presbyterians 
were paying $1,500 to one of their missionaries in Wyoming. 

The leaders of the western work also had to contend with the 
Local inevitable period of economic distress and stationary or even 

Set-backs decreasing population which followed the first boom in any new 

state or territory. In 1871 Bishop Tuttle reported that Idaho and 
Montana had reached this difficult state of transition from rapid 
growth to stable settlement, and that the work of the Church had 
been seriously hampered. For a time he had had no minister 
in Montana, but the Rev. W. H. Stoy had lately gone to Deer 
Lodge, and he hoped soon to obtain a missionary for Virginia 
City. There was only one minister in Idaho. The Mormon state 
of Utah, on the other hand, was receiving an influx of Gentiles 
as the result of the discovery of silver, and the parish at Salt Lake 
City, founded by the Rev. George W. Foote, since gone to Cali 
fornia, was strong enough to elect Tuttle its rector and pay him 
a salary of $2,000, which he used in procuring assistance. By 1875 
the reaction had set in in Utah also, and the Gentile immigration 


had been checked, but converts were still being made from 

The depression which was general throughout the United 
States in 1875 was intensified in Nebraska and Dakota by a plague 
of locusts, and Bishop Clarkson reported that the building of 
churches had largely ceased, and the schools he had founded were 
seriously distressed, though he hoped they would be able to 
weather the crisis. In 1880, Bishop Wingfield of Northern Cali 
fornia wrote that the "good times" of rapid growth which that 
state had known in the past were "gone forever," and that in the 
future "California must be content to go as other states." The year 
1887, when Bishop Ethelbert Talbot first went to Wyoming, was a 
disastrous one for that territory. During a severe winter seventy- 
five per cent, of the cattle died from cold and hunger, and when 
spring came it was found that the bottom had fallen out of the 
cattle market, due to the rapid development of the industry else 
where, so that the stock which survived could be sold for only 
about half the former price. The industry never became as profit 
able as it had been, and a few years later the silver market also 
collapsed, so that much of Bishop Talbot's episcopate was cast 
in hard times. 

Nevada, whose growth had been based almost entirely upon 
silver, declined more rapidly and permanently than any other 
western state. In 1890, the Right Rev. Abiel Leonard, Bishop of 
Nevada and Utah, wrote, "The census shows that the decline of 
the population in Nevada has been going on steadily during the 
past decade and there are today scarcely as many people in the 
entire state as there are in the city of Salt Lake." As its easy 
divorce laws proved, in time, to be almost the only means of 
drawing trade to the state, a moral difficulty was added to the 
economic one. 

Nevertheless, the Church grew steadily throughout most of 
the western region, though its growth was not always very even, steady 
local variations of leadership, personnel, or environment often Growth 
making its advance much more rapid at one time and place than 
at another. In 1871, the Right Rev. Henry N. Pierce, who had 
succeeded Bishop Lay as Bishop of Arkansas and Indian Terri 
tory, reported that three parishes had become self-supporting 
within his jurisdiction since the last General Convention, when 


there was only one. Four churches had been consecrated, and two 
were being built. In the same year, Bishop Clarkson reported that 
there were six ministers working among the white people in 
Dakota Territory, where five years ago there had been only one, 
the Rev. Melanchthon Hoyt, a pioneer of long standing. Besides 
these six there were three white and five Indian clergymen in the 
Indian jurisdiction of Niobrara, which was temporarily under 
his charge. In 1880 Bishop Whitaker reported that in the past ten 
years the number of churches in Nevada had increased from three 
to ten and the number of ministers from one to seven. This was 
before the state began its rapid decline, but in the same report in 
which he mentioned this decline, in 1890, Bishop Leonard, Bishop 
Whitaker's successor, said that the Church was growing in the 
three principal cities of the state. 

The census of 1890 officially recorded the passing of the frontier. 
Statistics of Thenceforth there was to be no fringe of settlement in the United 
States ? for the whole country belonged in the "settled area," 
though in some parts the settlement was still thin. In the same 
year, as shown by The Living Church Quarterly, the Episcopal 
Church had 48,569 communicants in the region lying between the 
Mississippi River and the states and territories on the Pacific 
Coast. These communicants were divided among eight dioceses 
and eight missionary jurisdictions, exclusive of the Indian Terri 
tory (Oklahoma) with fifty communicants, which was under 
the Bishop of Arkansas. Of the total number, the dioceses in 
cluded 38,039, and the missionary jurisdictions 10,530. Five of the 
dioceses, Missouri, Texas, Iowa, Minnesota, and Kansas, had 
been organized before the Civil War, and in the four first 
named, the Church had already obtained a substantial growth 
by 1866. The dioceses which had been organized since the Civil 
War were Nebraska in 1868, Arkansas in 1871, and Colorado in 
1887. A ninth missionary jurisdiction, The Platte, had been cre 
ated in western Nebraska in 1889, but its statistics had not yet 
been separated from those of the diocese. Four of the dioceses, 
Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota, included the four 
states which lie immediately west of the Mississippi, where the 
Church might be expected to develop first. From them, there 
was a pronounced westward thrust in the central part of the 
region, represented by Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado, and 


balanced, in part, by the diocese of Texas in the South. The 
remoter sections of that state had, however, been separated from 
the diocese to form the missionary jurisdictions of Northern and 
Western Texas. Louisiana is not counted with these states as com 
prising the Central West, because, though the bulk of its area is 
west of the Mississippi, a majority of its Church population resides 
in the cities of New Orleans and Baton Rouge, on the eastern 
bank of the Mississippi. 

On the Pacific Coast in 1890 there were 11,197 communicants 
of the Episcopal Church divided among two dioceses, Califor- The Pacific 
nia and Oregon, and two missionary jurisdictions, Northern States 
California and Washington. The diocese of California had been 
organized in 1850 to include the whole state, but as a large part 
of the northern section was incapable of self-support, the diocese 
asked to be relieved of it, and, as the result of an amendment to 
the constitution finally approved in 1874, it was cut off and made 
a missionary jurisdiction under the Right Rev. John Henry Du- 
cachet Wingfield. The principle upon which this action was based, 
i. e., that the Church as a whole should assume responsibility for 
the larger missionary areas, even though they occurred in a state 
where the Church was elsewhere fairly strong, *has led in the 
separation of a good many missionary districts from organized 
dioceses since it was adopted. As the total number of communi 
cants in the Episcopal Church in the continental United States in 
1890 was 484,020, the number on the Pacific Coast represented two 
per cent of the strength of the Church, and those in the interior 
region represented ten per cent. 

Much of the West remained a frontier region for the Church 
long after it had ceased to be a frontier for population, and in The Central 
some places this is still the situation. During the quarter century W estini9i5 
following 1890, the work in that region was carried on under sub 
stantially the same conditions as before. The population of the 
West continued to grow rapidly, as did that of the whole United 
States. In a few of the states of the interior the population growth 
lagged behind that of the country as a whole, but in others it was 
ahead. By 1915 the total number of Episcopal communicants 
in the region between the Mississippi and the Pacific States was 
105,531. Of these 75,302 were divided among fourteen indepen 
dent dioceses and 30,229 were located within the same number 


of missionary districts. Three of the missionary jurisdictions of 
1890 Montana, where Bishop Tuttle and his successor. Bishop 
Brewer, had carried on an important work; West Texas, where 
the Church had been built up by Bishop R. W. B. Elliott and 
Bishop J. S. Johnston; and North Texas, under Bishop Garrett 
had become independent dioceses, the last named adopting the 
designation of the Diocese of Dallas. Neither of the two new 
Texas dioceses, however, included all of the missionary districts 
from which they had been formed. The "Panhandle" and some 
of the sterile central portion of the state, included in the old juris 
diction of North Texas, had been continued as a missionary dis 
trict under the same title, and some of the southwestern counties, 
formerly belonging in West Texas, had been attached to New 
Mexico. The other new dioceses were the result of the division 
of two old ones, the former diocese of Minnesota having been 
divided into Minnesota and Duluth, and that of Missouri into 
Missouri and West Missouri. The increase in the number of mis 
sionary districts had been caused by the division of those which 
had included more than one state in 1890, and the creation of some 
others out of portions of organized dioceses, Salina having been 
separated from Kansas, and Western Colorado from Colorado. 
Indian Territory, which had been opened to white settlement in 
the interval, had developed two new missionary districts, Okla 
homa and Eastern Oklahoma. 

On the Pacific Coast the number of communicants had in- 
The Pacific creased to 42,384, of whom 35,772 were in five dioceses and 6,612 
States in 1915 in three missionary districts. Northern California had become self- 
supporting and had adopted the name of Diocese of Sacramento. 
The old Diocese of California had been divided into California 
and Los Angeles, and a new missionary district, that of San 
Joaquin, had been set up across the mountains. The states of 
Oregon and Washington had also been divided, the western and 
more populous sections becoming the dioceses of Oregon and 
Olympia, respectively, and the eastern portions being formed into 
the missionary districts of Eastern Oregon and Spokane. 

As the total number of communicants in the Episcopal Church 
in the continental United States in 1915 was 1,010,874, the number 
on the Pacific Coast now represented four per cent of the strength 
of the Church and the interior contained ten per cent. To produce 


this result, the number o communicants in the interior had been 
a little more than doubled, and that on the Pacific had been 
multiplied about three and three-fourths times. The more rapid 
growth in the latter region is probably accounted for partly 
by a greater growth in population there and partly by the larger 
number of urban centers. The growth of the Church as a 
whole, it may be observed, had kept well ahead of that of the 
total population during the twenty-five years, for it had more 
than doubled by 1915, whereas the population had not yet done 
so even by 1920, when the next census was taken. 

The American Empire, if our scattered possessions deserve so 
grandiloquent a title, was for the most part acquired in the second The Ameri- 
half of the nineteenth century. The Territory of Alaska was pur- can Empire 
chased from Russia in 1867, partly as an acknowledgment of that 
country's supposed friendliness to us during the Civil War. In 
1898, as a result of the Spanish-American War and the imperial 
istic sentiments which attended it, we annexed the remnants of 
the Spanish Empire, with the exception of Cuba, to which we gave 
a nominal independence. The most important territories thus 
acquired were the island of Puerto Rico in the Caribbean Sea and 
the Philippine Islands, off the coast of Southeastern Asia. In the 
same year we annexed the Hawaiian Islands in the middle of the 
Pacific Ocean, as the result of a request made some time before by 
the Americans and other foreigners who had gained control of 
the local government. The Panama Canal Zone was added in 
1903, and the Virgin Islands were purchased from Denmark in 
1917. Alaska, where the Russian and Eskimo population were 
soon supplanted by settlers from the United States, furnished a 
situation which, except as it was conditioned by the climate, was 
not unlike that to be found in the more extensive and less pop 
ulous of the western jurisdictions, but the other colonies, having 
predominantly non-European populations with varying degrees 
of civilization, presented many problems hitherto more often en 
countered in the foreign field. 

The work of the Episcopal Church in Alaska was not begun 
until 1889, when the Rev. John W. Chapman started his lifelong Alaska 
labors at Anvik on the Yukon River. The Missionary Society had 
provided him with a saw-mill and a boiler engine with which to 
build himself a station, and he himself acquired the aid of a 


native youth of about sixteen whom he planned to use as an 
interpreter, and whom he later adopted as his son. By 1895 he had 
been joined at Anvik by Miss Bertha W. Sabine, who ran a school 
there, and by Dr. Mary V. Glenton, a medical missionary, who 
was trying to found a maternity hospital. Two other missionaries, 
the Rev. E. H. Edson and Dr. John B. Driggs, ran a school 
in another part of the territory. In the same year the Right Rev. 
Peter Trimble Rowe was consecrated Bishop of Alaska, and under 
his capable and devoted direction the work grew rapidly. By 1900 
the Church had mission stations at Sitka, Skagway, Juneau, Cape 
Nome, and Rampart, and hospitals at Skagway, Circle City, Ram 
part, and Nome. In 1905 Bishop Rowe reported that the Church 
had seven hospitals in Alaska and that a new mission had been 
opened at Seward. The mission at Tanana was cooperating with 
the government in an effort to introduce the breeding of reindeer. 
Schools for the natives were maintained at eight stations. In the 
opinion of the leaders of the work, it was more important to 
educate these people "in ways of living, in the care of the sick, 
and in the ordinary sanitary precautions that make for health" 
than in reading and writing, though these were not neglected. 
As the native population was rapidly declining, a fear was ex 
pressed that unless effective action was taken very soon there 
would be no natives left to educate in anything. In 1915 Alaska 
reported 1,021 communicants. For many years Bishop Rowe was 
ably assisted in his work by his devoted Archdeacon, the Ven. 
Hudson Stuck. 

The acquisition of our principal island possessions led to more 
Puerto Rico immediate action on the part of the Episcopal Church than did 
and the the purchase of Alaska. The General Convention of 1898 ap- 

uppines pointed a Committee on the Increased Responsibilities of the 
Church, and as a result of its suggestions, some action was imme 
diately taken with respect to all of the new territories. Two 
missionaries, the Rev. George B. Pratt and the Rev. Frederick 
Gaunt, were sent to Puerto Rico and one, the Rev. James L. 
Smiley, was sent to the Philippines. There was also an Episco 
palian army chaplain in each of these colonies who cooperated 
with the missionaries. Puerto Rico was placed under the juris 
diction of the Bishop of Chicago and, subsequently, of the Bishop 
of Sacramento. By 1900, it had been visited, on behalf of Bishop 


Moreland, by Bishop Whipple of Minnesota. The Philippines 
were placed under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Shanghai, and 
visited by him. In 1902 the Right Rev. James Heartt Van Buren 
was consecrated Bishop of Puerto Rico. In his report of 1910 he 
observed that, as few Americans who came to the island regarded 
it as a permanent home, the work there must be directed more 
and more towards the native population. In 1915, 486 communi 
cants were reported from the island. The Right Rev. Charles 
Henry Brent was consecrated Bishop of the Philippine Islands in 
1901, and in the years before the War he built an extensive work 
there, both among the native population and within the American 
colony at Manila. Of the missions to the natives, the most im 
portant and effective was probably that of St. Mary the Virgin 
under the Rev. J. A. Staunton, Jr., at Sagada. In 1915 the Philip 
pines reported 1,130 communicants, but this represented a decrease 
of seventy from the preceding year. 

Work in the Hawaiian Islands had been begun by the Church 
of England some years before their annexation by the United The Hawaiian 
States. After that event, the work there was transferred to the Islands 
American Episcopal Church, and in 1902 the Right Rev. Henry 
B. Restarick was consecrated as the first American Bishop of 
Honolulu, with jurisdiction in the islands and in the American 
colony of Samoa. Lying, as they do, at the "Crossroads of the 
Pacific," these islands have a very mixed population. The native 
races appear to be dying out and the largest single element in the 
population at present is Japanese. There are also a large number 
of Chinese and an upper class of Americans and Europeans. At 
the time of Bishop Restarick's consecration the number of com 
municants was 412. By 1910 it had increased to 1,410 and 1,737 
were reported in 1915. 

After the Panama Canal Zone came under American control, 
it was placed under the Presiding Bishop, who delegated the The Canal 
Bishop of Washington, D. C, to act for him. A number of mis- Zone 
sion stations were opened there while the Canal was being built, 
but most of them were closed after its completion in 1915. That 
at Empire, which also served Culebra, was reopened, however, to 
meet the needs of the servants of the military garrison, eighty per 
cent, of whom had expressed a preference for the Episcopal 


The work of the Church among the Indians and negroes was 
Work Among carried on in a more systematic manner during this period than 
the Negroes j t fad }y^ ca during the preceding one. The Freedman's Commis 
sion, whose organization was mentioned at the beginning of the 
present chapter, spent $90,000 during the first three years o its 
existence, supporting twenty-six teachers during its first year 
(1866), sixty-two during its second, and sixty-five during its third. 
The number of pupils in its schools increased from 1,600 to 5,000 
during the same period. Most of the instruction, at first, was 
necessarily elementary, but in 1868 it started a high school at 
Charleston. In 1870 the Commission was made permanent, and 
given the name of Commission on Home Missions to Colored 
People. The Board of Missions had recommended the raising of 
$50,000 for the work, but by 1871 the Commission had succeeded 
in raising only $21,308. Its failure was partly due to its unwilling 
ness to employ a salaried agent, as there was a prejudice in the 
Church against those unromantic but necessary officers. Never 
theless, the Commission had succeeded in supporting, or helping 
to support, seventeen schools. By 1875 the number of schools 
assisted had increased to thirty-one. By 1890 the commission had 
expanded its efforts to include specifically religious as well as 
educational work. In that year it was supporting sixty-two white 
and forty-four negro clergy, one hundred and seventeen Sunday 
schools, sixty-five parochial schools and twelve industrial schools. 
It is estimated that the contributions received from colored people, 
of which it had only an imperfect record, were about equal to 
those received from white people for negro work. 

In 1906 the American Church Institute for Negroes was organ 
ized to obtain support for the larger negro schools of the Episco 
pal Church, including St. Augustine's School, Raleigh, the Bishop 
Payne Divinity School, St. Paul's Industrial School, St. Athanasius' 
School, Vicksburg Industrial School, and St. Mark's School. It 
also set a standard of instruction for the schools associated with it. 
Its organization had been approved by the Board of Missions, 
though not specifically authorized by General Convention. As was 
mentioned in the preceding chapter, the work among negroes at 
this time led to a demand for a negro episcopate which was finally 
satisfied in part by the canon on suffragans* 
It will be remembered that at the beginning of the Civil War 


the only important Indian work being carried on by the Church The Indians 
was among the Oneidas in Wisconsin and among the Chippe- 
ways in Minnesota, where Breck had started his mission. Bishop 
Whipple, who, in addition to building up the Church among the 
white people of Minnesota, carried on and extended Breck's 
Indian work, was one of the first to urge upon the Church as a 
whole a proper realization of its duty to the red man. In 1868 he 
submitted to the Board of Missions a vigorous report in which 
he denounced the general mistreatment of the Indian by the white 
man, and urged the Church to take some action in his behalf. 
In 1871, partly as a result of this appeal and partly, it would seem, 
in response to a suggestion from President Grant, the General 
Convention directed the Board of Missions to set up a Commis 
sion on Indian Affairs, and the House of Deputies appointed a 
committee of its own to cooperate with this Commission in de 
fending the rights of the Indian. At the same time, a special mis 
sionary jurisdiction, called Niobrara, was set up to include the 
Indian reservations in what is now South Dakota, and in western 

The new jurisdiction was placed temporarily under the super 
vision of Bishop Clarkson, of Nebraska and Dakota. In 1871 Bishop Hare 
he reported there were five Indian and three white clergymen at 
work within this area, and urged the appointment of a bishop. 
This recommendation was complied with in 1873, when the 
Right Rev. William Hobart Hare was consecrated Bishop of 
Niobrara. Bishop Hare was a son of the first Dean of the Phila 
delphia Divinity School, and had served for several years as Sec 
retary of the Foreign Committee of the Board of Missions. During 
his long episcopate, he identified himself heart and soul with the 
Indians and their welfare. In 1875 the Indian Commission reported 
that it had stations at White Earth and Mendota in Minnesota; 
at Niobrara, Santee, Yankton, Ponka, Yanktonnais, Mackenzie's 
Point and Upper Brule in the Niobrara Jurisdiction, and at 
Cheyenne, Wyoming. Some of these, moreover, were large reser 
vations where several missionaries were stationed, the greatest 
number, eight white and two Indian ministers, being on the 
Niobrara Reservation. 

In 1885 Bishop Walker of North Dakota received a delegation 
from five hundred Chippeway Indians then located in the Turtle 


Mountains in the northern part of that state. Forty of them had 
been converted to Christianity while living near the White Earth 
mission, and their fidelity had so impressed the rest of the tribe 
that they applied to Walker for a missionary. As a result, he 
succeeded in establishing a school among them. 

In 1900 Bishop Hare,, the title of whose jurisdiction had been 
changed to South Dakota, besides having charge of the white 
work in that state, was responsible for Indian missions on ten 
reservations, grouped together in the Niobrara Deanery. His 
Indian work included ninety congregations, with fifty-seven 
church buildings and 3,200 communicants, ministered to by six 
white and fifteen Indian clergymen, and assisted by about fifteen 
lay helpers and catechists. There were approximately 10,000 
baptized persons associated with the mission out of a total Indian 
population of 25,000. Regular Sunday services were held at about 
eighty different points. There were also four industrial boarding 
schools for Indians in the jurisdiction, supported partly by the 
Missionary Society, partly by the Woman's Auxiliary, and partly 
by government aid, which had, however, been recently reduced. 

In 1905 Bishop Brooke of Oklahoma and Indian Territory re- 
Oklahoma ported the operation of a number of day schools in the latter 
part of his jurisdiction. He found these more useful than boarding 
schools for the Indians in that region, as they encouraged the 
parents of the children to settle in one place, thus counteracting 
the nomadic propensities that were fostered by the practice of 
leasing their farms for yearly rentals which, together with some 
small annuities from the government, were just enough to keep 
them in "indecent idleness." 

The seeds sown in the foreign field in the earlier period of our 
China missionary history began to bear fruit after the Civil War, and an 

increasing number of converts was regularly reported from most 
of the foreign stations. In 1865, Channing Moore Williams, the 
first Episcopal missionary to Japan, was elected to succeed 
Bishop Boone as Bishop of China and Japan. By 1871 the China 
mission was served by seven presbyters, besides the bishop, two 
native priests, six foreign female missionaries, and two native lay 
missionaries of the masculine sex. A hospital had been started in 
1868. According to Bishop Williams, the number of baptisms in 
the three years between 1868 and 1871 was only eighteen less and 



the number of confirmations was twenty-seven more than in the 
twenty-one years of the mission's previous existence. 

In 1874, Bishop Williams was relieved of his responsibility for 
China, and allowed to concentrate upon the work in Japan as 
Bishop of Yedo. The Rev. S. I. J. Schereschewsky, the translator of 
the Bible, was elected Bishop of Shanghai. He immediately set 
about founding St. John's College (now a University), which has 
made an important contribution to the cause of Christian educa 
tion in China, as has its younger sister, Boone University at 
Wuchang. Bishop Schereschewsky resigned in 1883 and was suc 
ceeded by the Right Rev. William Jones Boone, who was in turn 
succeeded by the Right Rev. Frederick Rogers Graves in 1893. 
In 1901 the Chinese work was divided into the missionary dis 
tricts of Shanghai, under Bishop Graves, and Hankow, under the 
Right Rev. J. Addisqn Ingle, who was succeeded in 1904 by the 
Right Rev. Logan H. Roots. In 1910 Hankow was divided by 
the organization of the Missionary District of Wuhu, later Anking, 
of which the Right Rev. David Trumbull Huntington became 
bishop. In 1915 the Church in China was given a semi-independent 
status by the organization of the work of the Anglican communion 
in that country into the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui, or Chinese 
Holy Catholic Church. In 1890 China reported 460 communicants. 
By 1915 the number had increased to 3,479. 

Japan, in 1865, was just beginning her rapid acquisition of Euro 
pean customs and did not look with favor upon Christianity, Japan 
whose converts were still being persecuted. The most active spirit 
in the Japanese mission had, moreover, been temporarily with 
drawn by Bishop Williams' removal to China. In 1874 the edicts 
against Christianity were relaxed, and in the same year Bishop 
Williams, as has already been mentioned, was relieved of his 
Chinese jurisdiction and made Bishop of Yedo (later Tokyo). 
Thereafter the growth of the Church in Japan was rapid. The first 
baptism reported from that country was in 1886 and there had 
been no more until 1872. In 1874, twenty-one persons were bap 
tized. In 1890 Japan reported more communicants (865) than 
any other foreign field. By 1915 their number had increased to 
3,181. The work in Japan, as in China, was strengthened by the 
founding of educational and medical institutions, the two most 


important being St. Luke's Hospital and St. Paul's University 
in Tokyo. In 1898 the country was divided into the missionary dis 
tricts of Tokyo and Kyoto. Tokyo was continued under the Right 
Rev. John McKim, who had been elected in 1893, and Kyoto was 
placed under the Right Rev. S. C. Partridge, who was succeeded 
by the Right Rev. Henry St. George Tucker in 1912. 
The mission to Liberia, which was under Bishop Payne, was 

Liberia reported as being in a flourishing condition in 1865, and it so 

continued under Bishop Payne and his successors, Bishop Penick 
and Bishop Ferguson. In the first ten years of Bishop Ferguson's 
episcopate (1883-93), there were more baptisms than in the fifty 
previous years of the mission's existence. In 1890, Liberia reported 
576 communicants and by 1915 the number had grown to 2,501. 
Work which had been started in various Latin American coun- 

Latin America trits by the Evangelical American Church Missionary Society was 
taken over by the Board of Missions in the years following the 
Civil War. The mission to Haiti, when it came under the control 
of the Board in 1865, had three ministers and a catechist. In 1874 the 
General Convention recognized the independence of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church of Haiti, but with the understanding that it 
would continue to receive aid from the Board of Missions. The 
Right Rev. James Theodore Holly was consecrated its first bishop. 
This action set an important precedent which was to be followed 
by the creation of national churches in Mexico, China, and Japan. 
Haiti, however, lost its independent status after the death of 
Bishop Holly in 1911, and was administered by neighboring 
bishops until 1923, when the Right Rev. Harry Roberts Carson 
became its bishop. An independent Church was organized in 
Mexico, under the Right Rev. Henry Chauncey Riley, Bishop of 
Mexico Valley, but the experiment was not successful. In 1883, 
as a result of disagreements within his Church and between him 
self and the Board of Missions, Bishop Riley was asked to resign. 
Thereafter the Mexican work was without a bishop until the 
Right Rev. Henry D. Aves was consecrated in 1904. Work begun 
by the American Church Missionary Society in Cuba and Brazil 
was not taken over by the Board of Missions until 1905, but bishops 
had been sent to these countries before that year. The Right Rev. 
Lucien Lee Kinsolving had become Bishop of Southern Brazil 


in 1899, and the Right Rev. Albion W. Knight had been conse 
crated for Cuba in 1904. Bishop Knight was succeeded by the 
Right Rev. Hiram R. Hulse in 1915. In 1915 Haiti reported 843 
communicants; Mexico, 1,906; Brazil, 1,304, and Cuba, 1,677. 

A number of changes in the constitution of the Domestic and 
Foreign Missionary Society were made during this period, but The Woman's 
none of them was of a fundamental nature. For a time, the Gen- Auxiliary 
eral Convention constituted itself the Board of Missions, and the 
working organization was called the Board of Managers. In 1877, 
when party strife had begun to subside, the American Church 
Missionary Society became a recognized auxiliary of the general 
Society and by 1915 it had ceased to function except to administer 
its endowments. The most important development of the period, 
so far as the support of missionary work was concerned, was the 
organization of the Woman's Auxiliary to the Board of Missions 
in 1868, to coordinate the work formerly done by a large number 
of unrelated women's missionary societies. Its organization was 
largely the work of Miss Mary A. and Miss Julia C. Emery, and 
the latter continued for many years to be its active leader. Its first 
title was the Ladies Domestic Missionary Relief Association, but 
it assumed the more familiar designation when it was four years 
old. It originally functioned chiefly in supplying boxes of clothing 
and other goods to supplement the salaries of the missionaries, 
and to provide them with materials for relieving others, but after 
the institution of the United Thank Offering of prayer and material 
gifts in 1890, it became an important source of financial support as 
well. Miss Emery also organized a Junior Auxiliary to enlist the 
support of young girls in the work. By 1910 the Woman's Auxiliary 
had a branch in every diocese and missionary district of the Church. 
The Spirit of Missions continued its useful -work in the field of 
publicity throughout the period, and for a time the Domestic Com 
mittee operated a missionary paper for children, known variously as 
The Young Christian Soldier, The Christian Soldier and Children's 
Guest, and The Young Christian Soldier and the Carrier Dove. 


.HE American people have never fought a war in which they 
The World were so united as in the World War, nor one with which they be- 
War came so quickly disillusioned afterwards. As a result, there are few 

important social institutions or leaders who can look back upon 
their wartime utterances and actions with entirely unmixed feel 
ings. A strong pacifist movement had developed in this country 
in the years before the War, and the administration in power was 
composed mainly of pacifists. When, therefore, the leader of that 
administration finally pronounced in favor of war, it was natural 
to assume that every possible means of keeping peace had been 
exhausted. As soon as war was declared, if not before, the admin 
istration began making systematic use of the varied means of 
propaganda presented by the modern press and other mediums of 
publicity, employing these with a skill learned of modern psychol 
ogy. This activity, moreover, merely continued an effective propa 
ganda previously carried on in the United States by the Allied 
Powers, and in a short time laws were passed to silence any con 
trary testimony. It is not surprising, therefore, that most Americans 
were convinced that in entering the War we were merely repelling 
German aggression, and that we were fighting to preserve democ 
racy and secure a permanent peace. In the decade and a half that 
has followed, it has become evident that the War did not, in fact, 
attain these ends, and we have, moreover, seen reason to believe 
that, in the original issues of the struggle, the right was not so 
exclusively on one side as we had supposed. In the reaction that 
has followed, many, especially of the post-war generation, have 
probably been more severe than is necessary in their judgment of 
those leaders of public opinion who rallied to the support of our 
suddenly militant government after the declaration of war in the 
spring of 1917. 



The record of the Episcopal Church during the War was about War Record 
the same as that o other American denominations. Most o the of *<= Church 
clergy supported the War more or less vigorously, some of them 
becoming army chaplains or participating in the struggle in other 
ways, and a certain amount of war work was carried on in most 
parishes. Those ministers who felt obliged to take a pacific attitude 
were subjected to a good deal of popular abuse and, sometimes, to 
the disapproval of their ecclesiastical superiors. The most serious 
case of this sort was that of the Right Rev. Paul Jones, Missionary 
Bishop of Utah. Bishop Spalding, Bishop Jones' predecessor, had 
established a tradition of liberal social thought for the See which 
the latter carried on after his own election in 1914. After the 
United States entered the War, Bishop Jones' utterances and his 
connection with various radical organizations caused suspicions to 
arise as to his loyalty. When the House of Bishops held a special 
meeting in October, 1917, to fill some vacancies in the missionary 
episcopate, his Council of Advice called the attention of the House 
to the situation. After experimenting with various resolutions, the 
Bishops directed the Presiding Bishop to appoint a committee of 
investigation and granted the accused Bishop a "leave o absence" 
while the investigation was pending. At the request of this com 
mittee, Bishop Jones submitted his resignation to the House when 
it reconvened in April, 1918, but the Bishops declined to 
accept it because they were unwilling to admit the propriety of 
a member of their order resigning "in deference to an excited 
state of public opinion," as Jones had indicated that he was doing. 
He, therefore, tendered a resignation which gave no reasons of 
any sort, and this was accepted "in view of Bishop Jones* impaired 
usefulness," but "with full recognition of the right of every mem 
ber of this House to freedom of speech in political and social 
matters, subject to the law of the land." Before adjourning, the 
House sent a telegram of congratulation to General Pershing upon 
his confirmation in the Church. 

A certain amount of pacifist sentiment also manifested itself at 
Berkeley Divinity School, in Connecticut, during the War, and the 
school was subjected to a good deal of abuse from its neighbors in 
Middletown as a result. It was not exposed to any formal ecclesi 
astical censure, however. 

When the General Convention met in 1919 the war spirit was 


War Spirit still strong, and a number of resolutions were passed which would 
in the General seem to have been influenced by it. The Churchwomen's League 
^p cntlono for Patriotic Service was given official approval, and the Board of 
Missions was urged to establish a bureau of Christian American 
ization, Gratitude was expressed for "that host of noble American 
youth who, for the sake of God's cause, were careless of their lives 
even unto death," and approval was expressed of the establishment 
of the American Field of Honor in France. A resolution was also 
passed in favor of setting up the Church of the Holy Trinity in 
Paris as "America's War Memorial Church in Europe for her 
Hero Dead." On the other hand, a resolution was passed urging 
the entrance of the United States in the League of Nations and the 
Bishops passed one in favor of pardoning wartime prisoners. In 
the latter resolution, however, the Deputies did not concur. 

In 1920 a president was elected who was pledged to "Bring the 
Post-war country back to normalcy," and while one may be permitted to 
Reaction doubt that that is the word which exactly describes the resulting 

condition, it is certain that things were very different from what 
they had been during the War or before it. Post-war decades are 
likely to be periods of reaction and lethargy, as a result, it may be 
presumed, of emotional and economic fatigue. In the present case 
the reaction was intensified by the rapid disillusionment with the 
wartime ideals, and the consequent discrediting of the Progressive 
leaders who had sponsored them. The old Progressive movement, 
in fact, had completely disintegrated within a few years after the 
War, and a new type of Liberalism had to be developed, which 
did not begin to achieve cohesiveness until after a crisis had been 
developed by the secondary post-war depression at the end of the 
decade. With the collapse of Progressivism, there came a general 
cynicism with respect to all professions of lofty ideals, and a vigor 
ous "revolt of youth," and of many who were not young, against 
all traditional restraints upon the pursuit of pleasure. This is also 
a common post-war phenomenon, but in the present case it was 
more vocal than usual, and it apparently involved a general re 
jection of Victorian sexual standards, which had been receiving a 
severe pounding from liberals ever since the closing decade of the 
nineteenth century. It was also intensified by the general rebellion 
of people of all ages against the unfortunate experiment of pro 
hibition. In the resulting confusion quite a few people sought 


hysterically for ideals which were new enough not to have been 
discredited, and others turned for refuge to a somewhat neurotic 

Such an age was naturally a difficult one for the Church, as it 
was for any institution that was committed to ideals of long stand 
ing, and, though the total number of its members increased, there 
was a slight decrease in the ratio of its membership to the total 
population. Nevertheless, though much was said about the prob 
lems confronting the Church, its internal history does not seem 
to have been much affected by the spirit of the age, though pos 
sibly sufficient time has not elapsed for such an effect to become 
apparent. Some new agencies were developed in the effort to 
regain the younger generation, the most important being the em 
ployment of special student pastors at the larger universities of the 
country, and the organization of the Young People's Fellowship, 
an institution which differed from the earlier Church organiza 
tions for young men and women in being open to both sexes. A 
society of lay evangelists, known as the Church Army, which had 
been organized in England, was transplanted to this country and 
has done some work here. In 1931 it was given official approval 
by General Convention. 

The only thoroughly new movement which developed during 
the period was that which is known variously as "Buchmanism," Budunanism 
"The First Century Christian Fellowship," and "The Oxford 
Group Movement." It represents an experiential type of religion, 
and resembles early Methodism in its emphasis upon conversion 
and public testimony. Unlike Methodism, however, it is not dis 
tinctly a preaching movement, and its chief weakness would seem 
to lie in the want of a means of popular appeal, for so far it has 
shown itself most successful in personal evangelism among the 
upper classes. The Movement is still too new to form any estimate 
of its probable influence upon the Church, but it is possible that, if 
it should succeed in finding a way of reaching the common people, 
it may become an important factor in the Church's history, as it 
possesses more emotional force than any other movement among 
Churchmen at the present day. 

In general, the internal development of the Episcopal Church 
since the War seems to have followed the same tendencies of 
Catholicization and Liberalization which were apparent in the 







earlier period. It might be expected that the growth of these two 
apparently contrary tendencies would lead to a steadily sharpening 
conflict, but on the whole the tendency has been towards coales 
cence, producing, on the one hand, a somewhat liberalized Cathol 
icism and, on the other, engendering a greater appreciation of the 
Catholic tradition among many Liberals. Such a tendency may be 
regarded either as a sign of growing maturity and open-minded- 
ness in the Church, or as a symptom of decay, or both, according 
to one's point of view. In the history of most institutions, liberalism 
performs the same function as the ripening process in fruits. Up to 
a certain point the process is necessary to bring complete maturity 
and the full usefulness which that implies, but beyond that point 
the same process leads to decay, and, unless it is interrupted, as it 
often is, by the introduction of some new vitalizing force, to death. 
It is, however, practically impossible to locate the exact point at 
which the change takes place even when we are able to review 
the whole process after it has been completed, and to attempt to 
locate that point while the process is still going on would be rash 

There was a brief conflict between Liberalism and Orthodoxy at 
the beginning of the present period when the expression by some 
of the leading "Modernists" in the Church of doubts as to the 
historicity of the Virgin Birth and the Bodily Resurrection of 
Christ led the House of Bishops at a special session in 1923 to 
issue a Pastoral Letter insisting upon these beliefs as taught by 
the Church, and asserting that their historical accuracy was sup 
ported by "the best scholarship of the day." The implication con 
veyed in the Pastoral that those who rejected these doctrines could 
not honestly remain in the Church, and a threat that had been 
made to try a less conspicuous Modernist in another diocese, called 
forth a vigorous protest from Dr. Leighton Parks, one of the out 
standing leaders of the movement, in a sermon which he preached 
in St. Bartholomew's Church, New York, on December 16, 1923. 
His assertion in that sermon that, if the position of the Pastoral 
were correct, he himself, Bishop Lawrence of Massachusetts, Dr. 
Worcester of Boston, and other leading Modernists ought to be 
brought to trial, naturally provoked a certain amount o excite 
ment, but the dispute subsided in a surprisingly short time. Since 




then there has, apparently, been a tacit agreement on both sides not 
to force the issue. 

About the same time that this discussion was going on. Bishop 
William Montgomery Brown of Arkansas was deposed for teach 
ings contrary to those of the Episcopal Church, having denied, 
among other things, the existence of a personal God, and expressed 
doubts as to the historical existence of Christ. The event did not, 
however, have any great effect upon the Church, as Bishop 
Brown's views were too radical to have developed much of a 
party. Another bishop, Frederick Joseph Kinsman, of Delaware, 
had been lost to the Episcopal Church at the beginning of the 
decade through his conversion to Roman Catholicism. 

Lately, the apparently growing approximation of Catholicism 
and Liberalism has found expression in a movement consciously 
describing itself as Liberal Catholicism, which expressed its views 
in the publication of a collection of Essays Catholic and Critical,, 
by a number of English clergymen in 1926, and of another series 
called Liberal Catholicism in the Modern World, by a group of 
Americans in 1934. The movement seems to represent an effort 
to retain the chief features of the Catholic Tradition while, at the 
same time, accepting whole-heartedly the results of Biblical criti 
cism and of scientific research in all fields of knowledge. Remain 
ing substantially orthodox in its teaching, it tends to favor a wider 
latitude of belief than did the older Anglo-Catholicism and to 
show a greater readiness to re-express traditional beliefs in new 
thougRt forms. It has also shown an interest in social problems. 

A Liberal Evangelical movement has likewise grown up in re 
cent years, seeking to stress the positive contributions of the Refor- The Liberal 
mation and of Evangelical Protestantism while retaining the Evangelicals 
non-controversial spirit which is essential to Liberalism. While 
recognizing the value of the Catholic witness to the corporate life 
of the Church, the adherents of the movement believe that "The 
spirit of Evangelicalism is the essential guardian of the Church 
against the reversions to a lower level of religious life that con 
stantly threaten it, externalism, ritualism, intellectualism." To 
guard this spirit they have organized themselves into local groups 
for prayer and study. As Liberals, they "desire freedom in the 
Church for historical study, for theological interpretation, and for 


reverent experimentation in worship ... to set the Spirit free to 
reveal the truth of God to our own time." 

A number of important institutional changes have marked the 
The church post-war period. One of these, the organization of the Church 
Pension Fund Pension Fund, took place before the War, but so shortly before 
that its operation is a characteristic of the later period. In our 
treatment of the colonial Church, we had occasion to mention the 
organization of a number of insurance schemes for the relief of 
widows and orphans of clergymen. Some of these survived the 
Revolution, but they met the needs of only a small portion of the 
clergy. During the early nineteenth century, no provision was 
made for those who were not reached by these older funds, pos 
sibly because the simplicity of the economic system and the fre 
quency of remarriage made it comparatively unnecessary. In 1853 
the General Convention instituted a fund for the relief of clergy 
men's widows which was discontinued in 1868 for want of support 
but revived later under the title of the General Clergy Relief Fund. 
Unlike the colonial funds, it was a charitable enterprise, not a 
system of insurance, and it was never adequate to meet the de 
mands upon it. 

As the economic strain upon the middle class grew increas 
ingly severe with the passing years, and the economic position of 
women and children grew steadily worse, a demand for a more 
adequate pension system to provide both for widows and orphans 
and for aged clergymen developed within the Church as well as 
elsewhere. That it was effectively answered was due mainly to the 
self-sacrificing exertions of the Right Rev. William Lawrence, 
Bishop of Massachusetts, supported by the expert assistance of 
Mr. Monell Sayre. Bishop Lawrence's attention was first drawn 
to the problem when he discovered that many aged bishops and 
other clergymen were obliged to remain in harness long after their 
efficiency had been impaired because they lacked the money upon 
which to retire. After his election as a trustee of the General Clergy 
Relief Fund, he had an opportunity to observe the inefficiency of 
the charity system at first hand. 

In 1910 Bishop Lawrence introduced into General Convention 
a resolution for the appointment of a joint Commission to con 
sider the whole question of clerical support, though apparently with 
the expectation that it would deal chiefly with the pension problem. 


Most of the work of the Commission fell, of course, upon his 
shoulders. With the aid of Mr. Sayre, who had been recommended 
to him as probably knowing more about pensions than anyone 
else in the country, he set to work to invent a system which, while 
being voluntary in character, would, nevertheless, have in it the 
strongest possible elements of moral compulsion. The result was a 
system based upon sound insurance principles, with the assess 
ments, which were in proportion to the salary, being paid, not by 
the clergyman, but by his parish or other employing institution. 

This system was finally approved by the General Convention of 
1916, but the problem still remained of raising an initial fund of 
five million and fifty thousand dollars which was considered neces 
sary to put it into successful operation. This was, at the time, an 
almost unprecedented sum to raise by voluntary subscription. 
Bishop Lawrence resigned his diocese to devote himself to the 
task, and succeeded in getting the fund over-subscribed by the 
spring of 1917. In doing so, he developed methods of campaigning 
which were put to use again in many of the wartime "drives." 

The next important institutional development of the period was 
the coordination of the missionary and other activities of the The Presiding 
general Church under the leadership of the Presiding Bishop, as- 
sisted by a National Council, which thus replaced the old Board 
of Missions. The first step towards this change was made by pro 
viding that the office of Presiding Bishop should be elective, instead 
of being filled by seniority as it had been before. Amendments for 
this purpose were introduced at several General Conventions, but 
the change was not finally approved until 1919. It was not to take 
effect until the death of the then incumbent, Bishop Tuttle, but the 
organization of the National Council was carried out at once 
through a revision of the constitution of the Missionary Society. 
Under the Council were to be departments of Missions and 
Church Extension, Religious Education, Christian Social Service, 
Finance, Publicity, and the Nationwide Campaign. Most of these, 
except the missionary department and the one last named, repre 
sented Commissions of General Convention which had previously 
been uncoordinated. The first Presiding Bishop to be elected to the 
office was the Right Rev. John Gardner Murray, Bishop of Mary 
land, who was chosen in 1926. The term of office is six years, but 
Bishop Murray died in 1929, and was succeeded by the Right Rev. 



Charles Palmerston Anderson of Chicago, who only lived until 
the following year. His successor, the Right Rev. James DeWolf 
Perry, is still in office. In W34 the system was again changed, by 
relieving the Presiding Bishop of administrative work, so that he 
might devote his time to spiritual leadership. 

The executive functions formerly performed by the Presiding 
Bishop are now entrusted to the President of the National Council, 
of which office the Right Rev. Philip Cook is the present incum 
bent. The work of the Council is organized in two divisions. The 
first includes the departments of Domestic Missions, Foreign Mis 
sions (which also administers the work in our extracontinental ter 
ritories), Religious Education, and Christian Social Service. The 
second division includes the departments of Finance and Publicity, 
and the Field Department. 

The World War showed the effectiveness which could be 
achieved by large-scale "drives" for raising money, and after it was 
over an attempt was made to apply the lesson in the Church by 
organizing a "Nationwide Campaign" to raise money for its mis 
sionary and other activities. The drive was only moderately suc 
cessful, but it has been succeeded by several similar efforts. In 
some of the later drives an effort was made to call forth a spiritual 
revival as well, but it is probable that to the mind of the average 
layman they have continued to appear chiefly as expedients for 
raising money. The Forward Movement, which was set on foot by 
the General Convention of 1934, has, however, concentrated its 
efforts entirely upon deepening the devotional life o the Church, 
especially through the distribution of daily Bible readings and 
meditations. It appears to be meeting with a very satisfactory re 
sponse from the laity. 

The present period has witnessed a second revision of the Amer- 
Praycr Book ican Book of Common Prayer, which was begun in 1913 and given 
Revision na } a pp rO val by the General Convention of 1928. It resulted in 

some alteration in the order of the Communion Service, the 
Lord's Prayer being placed before the Prayer of Humble Access, 
which was, in turn, moved up, in order to come immediately be 
fore the Administration of the Elements. The Baptismal Service 
was modified to provide a single service that could be used either 
for infants or adults. Some changes were also made in the Burial 
Service and the Marriage Service, including the omission from 


the latter of the promise of obedience. A number of special prayers 
were added, the translation of the Psalter was revised, and pro 
vision was made for a greater flexibility in the use of the Psalms 
and Scripture lessons. 

The development of an interest in child psychology and the 
effort to turn the art of teaching into a science, which have been Religious 
characteristic of the twentieth century, have had their effect upon Education 
the Sunday schools of the Church, and the result has been the 
adoption of a more elaborate systematization of the classes and the 
attempt to secure technically trained teachers. As a result of this 
tendency, a Commission on Religious Education was created be 
fore the War, and it has become a department of the National 
Council since. An effort was also made to develop a single course 
of instruction for the whole Church, so that children transferring 
from one Sunday school to another would find the same subjects 
being taught. For this purpose the Christian Nurture Series was 
worked out, and has been adopted by a great many parishes. 

The Order of Deaconesses has not proven as popular with 
women Church workers as its sponsors hoped that it would, and 
only a small portion of such workers have joined it. At the General 
Convention of 1931 an effort was made to increase the appeal of 
the order to young women by relaxing some of the restrictions 
upon its members. The requirement that they could not marry 
while in the order was repealed, and they were freed from the 
necessity of wearing a habit at all times. In 1934 the privilege of 
marriage was withdrawn, but the deaconesses were allowed to 
make addresses if licensed by the bishop. 

Efforts for promoting Church unity have continued in the 
present period along more or less the same lines as they did in church 
the preceding one. In 1919, as the result of a concordat with the Unit y 
Congregational Church, a canon was passed allowing for the 
ordination of ministers to serve in congregations outside of the 
Episcopal Church with the understanding that the congregations 
were to continue under episcopally-ordained ministers, that the 
Lord's Supper would be administered in the Words of Institution, 
and only the baptized admitted to it. A hope was also expressed 
that the rite of Confirmation would ultimately be adopted by such 
Churches. The stipulation that the congregations would be ex 
pected to remain under episcopally-ordained ministers was not in 


the original concordat, and its addition by our Church has caused 
the arrangement to become largely inoperative. At the same ses 
sion, Cardinal Mercier, who, in addition to his heroic work in 
Belgium during the German occupation, had been associated with 
efforts at a rapprochement between the Roman and Anglican com 
munions which have since been condemned by the Pope, was 
presented to the Convention. 

In 1925 General Convention voted to cooperate with the Federal 
Council of Churches in the departments of Social Service, Race 
Relations, International Justice and Good Will, Research and Edu 
cation, Religious Press, Finance, and Army and Navy Chaplain 
cies. In 1927 the Episcopal Church participated in the first World 
Conference on Faith and Order at Lausanne, Switzerland, where 
representatives of all the leading Christian bodies except the 
Roman Catholic Church discussed the problems of unity. Prepa 
rations are already being made for assisting at a second such con 
ference in 1937. In 1931 conferences were held by committees of 
General Convention with a number of Protestant denominations, 
but no definite results were reached. Numerous conversations 
have also been held with representatives of the Eastern Orthodox 
Church, and there has been some practical cooperation in this 
country, but as yet no official act of communion has taken place. 
In 1934 inter-communion with the Old Catholics, as worked out 
by the Lambeth Conference, was approved by General Conven 
tion, and a canon on alien rites was adopted which made it pos 
sible to receive into communion with this Church individual 
congregations professing the Catholic Creed but not using our 
forms of worship. An effort to give practical application to the 
canon by the election of the Right Rev. John Torok, a bishop in 
Eastern Orthodox orders, as Suffragan Bishop of Eau Claire was, 
however, defeated by the House of Bishops. 

The interest in social questions has also continued into the 
Interest in present period. The Commission on Christian Social Service has 
Questions become a department of the National Council, and carries on the 
work of issuing publications, holding conferences, and giving ad 
vice to the charitable institutions of the Church. General Con 
vention, while not issuing any clear pronouncement upon 
fundamental economic or political issues, has apparently felt that 


all sorts of minor social problems came within its competence, and 
resolutions have been passed against mob violence, religious and 
racial intolerance, opium, and the marriage of the unfit, and in 
favor of the Boy Scouts, kindness to animals, and the Near East 
Relief, as well as upon many other subjects of a similar character. 
Approval has been expressed of the various disarmament confer 
ences and the arbitration of international disputes, and aggressive 
war has been declared a crime. Labor and Capital have been invited 
to adopt the principle of "partnership as an expression of Christian 
brotherhood in business." In 1934 adherence to the World Court 
was advocated, and resolutions were adopted opposing the 
Church's blessing of war in any way, appointing a commission to 
cooperate with other denominations in opposing war, endorsing a 
world conference on war and peace, and calling upon the Federal 
Government to recognize the rights of conscientious objectors. 
Through a parliamentary blunder on the part of the Liberals, no 
resolutions on economic questions were adopted, but the Bishops 
in their Pastoral Letter described the present economic order as 
one of "lamentable inadequacy." A resolution was adopted advo 
cating the legalization of instruction in birth control under proper 

In 1931 the General Convention adopted a canon regarding mar 
riage and divorce which involved some modification of the tradi 
tional position of the Episcopal Church upon that subject. It Marriage and 
provided for instruction and a delay before marriage, and con- Divorce 
tinued the prohibition of the marriage by Church ministers of 
divorced persons, except the innocent party to a divorce for adul 
tery, but it also provided for the annulment of a marriage in cer 
tain cases. When this took place, remarriage was to be permitted. 
Moreover, when a minister thought that persons desirous of re 
ceiving Confirmation or Communion had been married contrary 
to the Word of God and the discipline of the Church, he was to 
refer the matter to the bishop, who should give his judgment in 
writing "after due enquiry . . . and taking into consideration the 
godly discipline both of justice and mercy," an expression which 
would seem to imply that he might admit them even if they had 
been so married. Persons who had been married by civil authority 
and had any doubt as to the validity of their union might also 



The Foreign 
Field in 

submit their cases to the bishop for judgment, a rule which was 
presumably also intended to cover cases of remarriage. 

The missionary work of the Church went on as usual in most 
places during the war, but there was a certain amount of inter 
ruption in some jurisdictions. Bishop Brent engaged extensively in 
war work, and it would seem that his doing so distracted his at 
tention from the affairs of the Philippines, for when his successor, 
the Right Rev. Gouverneur Frank Mosher, went out in 1920, he 
found some phases of the work in an unsatisfactory condition. The 
cathedral at Manila had been nearly destroyed by white ants, the 
cathedral dormitory was temporarily closed, the settlement work 
had been given up, and so had the cathedral school for American 
girls. It should be observed, however, that two years had elapsed 
between Bishop Brent's resignation and the election of his suc 
cessor, which might account for the decline. Bishop Ferguson of 
Liberia had died in 1916, and his successor, the Right Rev. Walter 
Henry Overs, was not consecrated until 1919. When he arrived he 
found many of the mission structures badly broken down, and 
had to assume the difficult task of rebuilding. He resigned in 1925 
and was succeeded by the Right Rev. Robert Erskine Campbell of 
the Order of the Holy Cross, which had long been carrying on an 
important work in that field. 

In 1935 the missionary district of Anking reported 1,831 com 
municants, that of Hankow reported 2,635, and that of Shanghai 
4,566, making a total for China of 9,032, or an increase of 5,553 
over 1915. The figure was slightly lower than that reported in the 
preceding year, however, because of a loss of 408 communicants 
in Hankow. The Church in Japan had obtained a semi-inde 
pendent status with the organization of the Nippon Sei Kokwai, 
or Holy Catholic Church of Japan, in 1922, and a new district, that 
of Tohoku, had been added in 1928. Tohoku reported 942 com 
municants in 1935, North Tokyo (formerly Tokyo), reported 
1,404, and Kyoto 1,876, making a total of 4,222, or an increase of 
1,041 over 1915. It must be remembered that these figures do not 
represent the totals for either the Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui 
or the Nippon Sei Kokwai, but only for the portions of those 
Churches which are supported by the American Episcopal Church. 
Liberia reported 5,539 communicants in 1935, or an increase of 
3,038 over 1915. In Haiti the 843 communicants of 1915 had 


increased to 5,435, besides 1,066 in the Dominican Republic. Cuba 
had added 1,464 communicants, making a total of 3,141, and 
Brazil had increased from 1,304 to 4,058. Mexico, however, had 
lost thirty-nine communicants, the number in 1935 being only 
1,867. This decrease was probably the result, in part at least, of the 
political difficulties which confronted the Church, as well as other 
denominations, in that country. 

The annual rate of increase in China had risen from 121 com 
municants a year in the period from 1890 to 1915 to 278 a year Rate of 
in the ensuing twenty years, and, in Liberia, from seventy-seven Increase 
to 152. In Japan, however, the rate had declined from ninety-three 
to fifty-two. This comparison cannot be made for the Latin Amer 
ican countries as no statistics for them were reported in 1890. With 
the exception of Mexico, however, their rate of increase for the 
period from 1915 to 1935 compared favorably with those of the 
other fields. The Church in Haiti had grown at a rate of 230 com 
municants a year, that in Brazil at a rate of 138, and that in Cuba 
at a rate of seventy-three. There was also a substantial growth of 
the Church in most of our extra-continental possessions. Puerto 
Rico showed the largest increase, the number of communicants 
there having grown from 486 in 1915 to 6,146 in 1935. The 
Philippines came next, with an increase of 5,593, making a total 
of 6,723 in 1935. Honolulu reported 3,588, an increase of 1,851 
over 1915. Alaska, in spite of a decreasing population, had added 
609 communicants, having 1,630 in 1935. 

The economic depression which began in 1929 and whose end 
is still being awaited, has been widely regarded as marking the 
end of an era. Historians should know better than to prophesy, 
but the present writer is disposed to hazard the prediction that 
when enough time has passed to permit viewing the present time 
with a certain degree of perspective, the old era will be held to 
have ended with the World War and the decade just past, and 
probably the present one will be seen as the period of instability 
and confusion that intervened before the standards of the new 
era could be crystallized into a recognizable form. He does not, 
however, pretend to have any idea what that era will be like when 
it comes, or what role the Church will be called upon to play in it. 

If the author is right in his understanding of the contemporary 




situation, it is obvious that he cannot hope to end his narrative 
with even that approximate finality which may be achieved by a 
historian who terminates his work with the end of an epoch. It has 
seemed best, therefore, to close by simply giving a brief summary 
of the present position of the Episcopal Church, and to leave the 
subsequent chapters to be written by time. 

In 1935 the total number of communicants of the American 
Episcopal Church in all countries was 1,363,414, of whom 35,657 
were accounted for by the foreign field, leaving a total of 1,327,757 
communicants in the United States and its possessions, 21,485 
being located in the latter. Of the communicants within the con 
tinental United States, 842,312, or 64 l / 2 per cent, were located north 
of the Mason and Dixon line and the Ohio River, and east of the 
Mississippi. In the southeastern states there were 245,966 com 
municants, or 19 per cent, so that, in all, 83 ! /z per cent of the total 
number of the communicants of the Episcopal Church were living 
east of the Mississippi. In the region between the Mississippi and 
the Pacific States there were 149,317 communicants, or ll l / 2 per 
cent of the total, and in the 'Pacific States there were 68,677 or five 
per cent of the total. 

Thus, there had been little increase in the proportionate strength 
of either of the western areas, and the membership of the Episcopal 
Church was still overwhelmingly eastern. The center of Church 
population was estimated to be at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 
whereas the center of the general population was at Linton, Indi 
ana, some six hundred miles farther west. There were still fifteen 
missionary districts within the continental United States, all of 
them west of the Mississippi. The Church was still predominantly 
urban and upper class in its membership, though a growing in 
terest in rural work had developed, as witnessed by the develop 
ment of special diocesan missioners in many dioceses, and the 
appointment of a secretary for rural work in the Department of 
Christian Social Service. 

The modern period has been very prolific in organizations, and 
there are at present a great many official and unofficial institutions 
functioning in the Church. Of the official organizations, the most 
important, besides the National Council, are the Woman's Aux 
iliary, the Commission on College Work, the Order of Deacon 
esses, the Church Army, and the Church Pension Fund and its 


affiliates, the Church Properties Fire Insurance Corporation, and 
the Church Life Insurance Corporation. The unofficial or semi 
official organizations include institutions for special religious and 
social work, such as the Church Mission of Help, the American 
Church Institute for Negroes, and the City Mission Society; gen 
eral social and devotional societies, such as the Brotherhood of 
St. Andrew, the Girl's Friendly Society, the Young People's 
Fellowship, and the Daughters of the King; organizations for 
propaganda and discussion, such as the Church Congress, the 
Anglo-Catholic Congress, the Church Club, and the Church 
League for Industrial Democracy; and institutions for the per 
formance of special services, such as the Church Periodical Club 
and the Church Historical Society. There are also a large number 
of hospitals, homes for the aged, orphan asylums, and other social 
agencies connected with the Church in various cities. There are six 
religious communities for men, of which the best known are the 
Society of St. John the Evangelist and the Order of the Holy 
Cross, and sixteen for women, including the Sisterhood of St. 
Margaret, the Community of St. Mary, and the Sisterhood of the 
Holy Nativity. 

There are fourteen theological seminaries in the Church, of 
which the most important are the General Theological Seminary, Theological 
New York City; the Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Seminaries 
Massachusetts; the Virginia Theological Seminary, Alexandria, 
Virginia; the Philadelphia Divinity School, Philadelphia, Penn 
sylvania; Seabury- Western, Evanston, Illinois; Nashotah House, 
Nashotah, Wisconsin; Bexley Hall, Gambier, Ohio; Berkeley 
Divinity School, New Haven, Connecticut; and the Divinity 
School of the Pacific, Berkeley, California. The depression has 
lessened the income of all of the seminaries to some extent, and a 
few of them have been threatened with the necessity of closing alto 
gether. Four colleges have some degree of association with the 
Church: Hobart College, Geneva, New York; Trinity College, 
Hartford, Connecticut; Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio; and the 
University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee. Besides these there 
are several schools for Deaconesses and other Church workers, 
and a larger number of summer schools, intended chiefly for 
training in religious education. 

The periodicals mentioned in Chapter XIV, The Churchman, 


The Living Church, and the Southern Churchman carried on their 
work of reporting and commenting in the post-war period. In 
recent years they have been joined by The Witness, published at 
Chicago, under the editorship o Bishop Johnson of Colorado. 
The Uving Church Annual continued its statistical record of the 
Church's life throughout the period. 

Though there were 6,356 ministers to 8,222 parishes and missions 
* n t ^ ie ^ n * tec * States in 1935, the number of parishes which were 
unable to support a minister, or dependent upon the part-time 
services of one, was so great that there appeared to be a surplus of 
clergy with respect to the paid positions. As an excess of ministers 
is a new thing in the history of the American Episcopal Church, 
it has attracted a good deal of attention, but whether it is to become 
a permanent situation or not, it is impossible to say. It would 
seem to be fairly certain that the surplus is created by a shortage 
of funds rather than by a lack of work to be done, and it is equally 
obvious that, unless the Episcopal Church is prepared to reconcile 
itself to a condition of stagnation or, more probably, of decline, it 
cannot go on indefinitely adhering to a policy of curtailment and 
economy in the management of its afiairs, whether parochial, 
diocesan, or national. When it has once again developed an ex 
panding work, it may be doubted that it will find itself over- 
supplied with ministers. 

Courtesy, General Convention Committee, Diocese of New Jersey 

Atlantic City, 1 

Jersey, October 10, 1934. 


This list is not intended to be complete, but to serve as a guide 
to further study. Only the most fruitful sources are mentioned. 

A. Colonial 

Hawks Transcripts. Ms. copies of letters, reports, etc., 
bearing on the colonial Church, in files of S.P.G. and 
Bishop of London. Basic source for eighteenth century. 
Now in New York Historical Society Library, New 
York City. Portions have been published as follows: 
Hawks, F. L., and Perry, W. S., ed., Documentary 
History of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut, 
2 vols. New York, 1863. 

Perry, W. S., ed., Historical Collections Relating to 
the American Colonial Church. Hartford, 1870 if. 
One volume each for Maryland-Delaware, Massa- 
. chusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 

Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. Abstracts of 
Proceedings, appended to annual Sermons. London, 

B. Post-Revolutionary 

Diocese of Illinois. Memorial to the Standing Committees, 

signed by sundry laymen and presbyters, protesting the 

De Koven election. Chicago, 1875. 
Diocese of Illinois. The Legality of the Election of Dr. 

De Koven, by the Chancellor (S. C. Judd). Chicago, 

Diocese of Massachusetts. Correspondence between the 

Bishop and the Rectors of the Parish of the Advent. 

Boston, 1856. 
Diocese of New York. Trial of the Rev. Stephen H. Tyng, 

Jr. New York, 1868. Case of intrusion. 


Diocese of North Carolina. Statement of the Difficulties 
between the Diocese and Dr. Ives, Lately Bishop of 
Said Diocese, prepared by a committee of the Conven 
tion. Fayetteville, 1853. 

Diocesan Journals. Those of the older dioceses are espe 
cially important in tracing the reorganization and early 
growth of the Church after the Revolution. 

Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society. Proceedings, 
1823-1920. Contains acts of Society, summaries of work 
being done, extracts from reports of missionaries, and 

General Convention. Journals. Published triennially. 
Journals, 1784-1814; reprinted, Bioren, Philadelphia, 
1817. The debates of the more important conventions, 
as 1862, 1865, and 1874, should be followed in the Con 
vention Dailies or other Church papers. 

General Theological Seminary. Proceedings of the Board 
of Trustees, 1821. 

House of Bishops. Pastoral Letters. Published after nearly 
every General Convention, and occasionally at special 
meetings. Those for 1865, 1892, and 1923 are especially 

Parish Records and Histories, published or ms. Useful 
chiefly for purposes of illustration, but those of some 
old parishes, as Henrico, Virginia; Christ Church, Phil 
adelphia; Trinity, New York; and King's Chapel, Bos 
ton, contain material of general interest. 

Presiding Bishop and Council. Annual Report, 1920 . 
Continuation of Domestic and Foreign Missionary 
Society. Proceedings. 

Protestant Episcopal Church. The Decision of the Bishops 
Who United in the Consecration of the Rev. Henry U. 
Onderdonk, D.D. Philadelphia, 1827. 

Protestant Episcopal Church. Proceedings of the Court 
Convened for the Trial of the Right Rev. Benjamin T. 
Onderdonk, D.D. New York, 1845. 

Protestant Episcopal Church. Proceedings of the Court 
Assembled for the Trial of the Rt. Rev. George Wash 
ington Doane, D.D., LL.D. New York, 1853. 


Protestant Episcopal Church. In the Court of Review i In 
the Matter of the Presentment of Bishop William Mont 
gomery Brown; On Appeal from Trial Court. Cleve 
land, 1925. 

Province of South Africa. Trial of Dr. Colenso, Bishop of 
Natal. Cape Town, 1863. 

Year Books: 

Swords' Pocket Almanac. New York, 1816-60. 
Whittaker's Churchman s Almanac. New York, 1874- 


Living Church Annual, The. Milwaukee, 1890 . Pub 
lished, 1890-99, as The Living Church Quarterly. 


Hobart, J. H., mss., 1800-30. In New York Historical Society 

Jarvis, Abraham, mss., owned by Rev. H. C. Robbins (Not 
consulted) . 

Johnson, S. R., mss. In General Theological Seminary Li 
brary. Illustrative of Church life in early nineteenth century, 
especially in the West. 

Kemper, Jackson, mss. In Library of Wisconsin Historical 
Society. Illustrative of missionary work in the Northwest. 
Can be used only with permission of the Bishop of Mil 

Smith, William, mss. In New York Historical Society Li 
brary. Important for late colonial period and period of 

White, William, mss. In New York Historical Society Li 
brary. Essential to understanding of period of organization. 
Valuable for Revolution and early nineteenth-century 


(All of those given, except the first two, have or have had a 
national circulation. The two exceptions are chosen as 
samples of the smaller papers characteristic of the early 
nineteenth century.) 

Banner of the Church. Boston, 1831-2. 

Church Register. Philadelphia, 1823-9. 


Church Journal. New York, 1853-?. 

Churchman, The. Hartford and New York, 180-1. Publica 
tion Interrupted, 1812, 1816-20, and 1824. 

Living Church f The. Chicago and Milwaukee, 1878 . 

Spirit of Missions, The. New York, 1836 . An important 
source for missionary history. The earlier volumes are of 
greater value to the historian than the later, because the 
reports of the missionaries received less editing. 

Witness, The. Chicago. 

A. Colonial. 

(Titles marked with an asterisk (*) are taken from Cross, 
A. L., Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies, 
and were not consulted by the present writer.) 
*Apthorp, East, Considerations on the Character and Con 
duct of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. 
Boston, 1763. 
*Apthorp, East, A Review of Dr. Mayhew's Remarks on 

the Answer to His Observations. 
*Beach, John, A Calm and Dispassionate Vindication of 

the Professors of the Church of England, 1749. 
Blackburne, Francis, A Critical Commentary on Arch 
bishop Seeder's Letter to the Right Honorable Horatio 
Walpole, London, 1770. 
Bray, Thomas, The Acts of Dr. Bray's Visitation Held at 

Annapolis in Maryland. London, 1700. 
Bray, Thomas, A General View of the English Colonies 
in America with Respect to Religion. London, 1698. 
Bray, Thomas, A Letter from Dr. Bray to Such as Have 
Contributed Towards the Propagating of Christian 
Knowledge in the Plantations. New York, 1700. 
Bray, Thomas, A Memorial Representing the Present Case 

of the Church in Maryland. 1700. 

Bray, Thomas, A Memorial Representing the Present 
State of Religion on the Continent of North America. 
London, 1700. 
Bray, Thomas, Proposals for the Encouragement and Pro- 


mating of Religion and Learning in the Foreign Planta 
tions. 1701(?). 

Bray, Thomas, Several Circular Letters to the Clergy of 

Maryland. London, 1701. This and the preceding 

pamphlets by Thomas Bray have been reprinted by the 

Thomas Bray Club. 

*Caner, Henry, A Candid Examination of Dr. Mayhew's 

Observations. Boston, 1763. 
*Chandler, T. B., An Appeal to the Public in Behalf of the 

Church of England in America. New York, 1767. 
Chandler, T. B., The Appeal Defended. New York, 1769. 
Chandler, T. B., The Appeal Farther Defended. New 

York, 1771. 

Chandler, T. B., A Free Examination of the Critical Com 
mentary on Archbishop Seeker's Letter. New York, 
*Chauncy, Charles, An Appeal to the Public Answered. 

Boston, 1768. 

*Chauncy, Charles, A Letter to a Friend. Boston, 1767. 
Cooper, Miles, et al. f An Address from the Clergy of New 
Yor%_ and Neus Jersey to the 'Episcopalians of Virginia. 
New York, 1771. 
*Gwatkin, Thomas, A Letter to the Clergy of Neus Yorf^ 

and Neus Jersey. Williamsburg, Virginia, 1772. 
*Hobart, Noah, A Serious Address to the Members of the 
Episcopal Separation in New England. Boston, 1748. 
*Inglis, Charles, A Vindication of the Bishop of Landlaff's 

Sermon. New York, 1768. 

Inglis, Charles, State of the Anglo- American Church in 
1776. n. d. Also to be found in Hawks' Transcripts for 
New York. 

*Mayhew, Jonathan, Observations on the Charter and Con 
duct of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. 
London, 1763. 
*"Wetmore, James, Vindication of the Professors of the 

Church of England in Connecticut. 1747. 
B. Post-Revolutionary 

Allen, Benjamin, A Letter to the Right Reverend John 
Henry Hobart, D.D. Philadelphia, 1827. 


Allen, Benjamin, Second letter to the Right Reverend 
John Henry Hobart, D.D. Philadelphia, 1827. These 
two letters relate to the election controversy in Penn 

Binney, Horace, The Case of the Right Rev. Henry U. 
Onderdon\, D.D. Philadelphia, 1853. A plea for Onder- 
donk's restoration. 
Griswold, A. V., An Address to the Biennial Convention 

of the Eastern Diocese. Providence, 1818. 
Griswold, A. V., An Address to the Tenth Convention of 

the Eastern Diocese. Boston, 1825. 
Griswold, A. V., An Address to the Twelfth Convention 

of the Eastern Diocese. Middlebury, Vermont, 1827. 
Griswold, A. V., A Charge Addressed to the Clergy of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the Eastern Diocese, to 
Which is Prefixed a Pastoral Letter. Boston, 1816. A 
plea for missionary effort. 

Harrison, Hall, Loose Him and Let Him Go. Boston, 
189L A speech against recall of Father Hall for support 
of Bishop Brooks. 
Hobart, J. H., An Address to Episcopalians on the Subject 

of the American Bible Society. New York, 1816. 
Hobart, J. H., A Charge to the Clergy of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the State of New Yor^ New 
York, 1815. His first charge. Deals with doctrine of the 

Hobart, J. H., The Churchman: The Principles of the 
Churchman Stated and Explained in Distinction -from 
the Corruptions of the Church of Rome and from the 
Errors of Certain Protestant Sects. New York, 1819. 
Third charge. 

Hobart, J. H., The Corruptions of the Church of Rome 
Contrasted with Certain Protestant Errors. New York, 
1818. Second charge. 
Hobart, J. H., The High Churchman Vindicated. New 

York, 1826. Fourth charge. 

Hobart, J. H., Letter to the Vestry of Trinity Church in 
Answer to a Pamphlet Entitled, "A Solemn Appeal to 


the Church:' New York, 1811. Deals with "Cave Jones 

Hobart, J. H., A Pastoral Letter on the Subject of the 
Protestant Episcopal Clerical Association. New York, 

Hobart, J. H., A Pastoral Letter Relative to Measures for 
the Theological Education of Candidates for Orders. 
New York, 1820. 

Hobart, J. H., A Statement to the Episcopalians in the 
State of Neus Yor^ Relative to Some Recent Events in 
the Protestant Episcopal Church in Said State. New 
York, 1812. Deals with "Cave Jones Affair." 

Hopkins, J. H., The Latv of Ritualism. New York, 1867. 

Ives, L. S., The Priestly Office: A Pastoral JLetter to the 
Clergy of North Carolina. New York, 1849. 

Ives, L. S., A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy and I^aity of 
His Diocese. New York, 1849. Deals with controversies 
that led to his conversion to Roman Catholicism. 

Jay, William, A Letter to the Right Reverend Bishop 
Hobart Occasioned by the Strictures on Bible Societies 
in His Late Charge to the Convention of Neus Yor^. 
New York, 1823. 

Jones, Cave, Dr. Hobart' s System of Intolerance Exempli 
fied in His ILate Proceedings against His Colleague, the 
Author. New York, n. d. 

Jones, Cave, A Solemn Appeal to the Church. New York, 
1811. The opening gun of his controversy with Hobart. 

Meade, William, Statement in Reply to Some Parts of 
Bishop OnderdonJ^s Statement. New York, 1845. De 
fends his role in Onderdonk trial. 

Muhlenberg, W. A., An Exposition of the Memorial of 
Sundry Presbyters. New York, 1854, 

Muhlenberg, W. A., Memorial of Sundry Presbyters of 
the Protestant Episcopal Church, Presented to the 
House of Bishops. October 18, 1853. 

Muhlenberg, W. A., What the Memorialists Want. New 
York, 1856. 

Onderdonk, B. T., A Statement of the Pacts and Circum- 


stances Connected with the Recent Trial of the Bishop 
of New Yorj(. New York, 1845. 

Onderdonk, B. T., et aL, Full and True Statement of the 
Examination and Ordination of Mr. Arthur Carey. 
New York, 1843. Extracted from The Churchman. 
Parks, Leighton, Intellectual Integrity. New York, 1923. 
Seymour, G. F., An Open Letter to the Right Rev. Wil 
liam C. Doane in Reference to the Consecration of the 
Right Rev. Dr. Broods. Springfield, Illinois, 1892. Gives 
account of his reasons for opposing consecration and 
measures he took to prevent it. 

Smith, Hugh, and Anthon, Henry, A Statement of Facts 

in Relation to the Recent Ordination in St. Stephen s 

Church. New York, 1843. Presentation of the case 

against the ordination of Arthur Carey. 

White, William, The Case of the Episcopal Churches in 

the United States Considered. Philadelphia, 1783. 
White, William, The Integrity of Christian Doctrine and 
the Sanctity of Christian Practice United in Christian 
Preaching. New York, 1811. Illustrative of White's the 
ological position. 

White, William, The Past and Future, a Charge on Events 
Connected with the Organization of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church. Philadelphia, 1834. 
Anonymous : 

Considerations on the Eastern Diocese. Boston, 1837. 

A discussion of its canonical status. 

Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Clerical Asso 
ciation of the City of New Yor^ and Forms of Prayer 
Used by the Association. New York, 1829. This is the 
association attacked by Hobart. 

The Liberal Evangelicals: Purpose, Program and Or 
ganization. 1933. 

Resolutions Adopted at a Meeting of Episcopalians at 

Mechanics Hall; also Ttt/o Letters from the Hon. 

John Jay. New York, 1812. Relates to "Cave Jones 


A Statement of the Facts and Reasonings in Support of 


the 'Remonstrance against the Consecration of the 
Rev. Henry U. Onderdon\, D.D. Philadelphia, 1827. 


A. Colonial 

(See note under IV-A.) 

Bradford, William, History of Plymouth Plantation. 
Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1908. 

Slafter, E. F., John Chec^ley, or the Evolution of Religious 
Tolerance in Massachusetts Bay, 2 vols. Boston, 1897. 
Writings o Checkley, prefixed with a somewhat parti 
san biography. 

Winthrop, John, Journal, 2 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, 

New York, 1908. 

*The American Whig, 2 vols. New York, 1768-9. Re 
printed from newspapers. 

Collections of the Protestant Episcopal Historical Society 
for the Year 1851. New York, 1851. Only year published. 
Contains Journal and Letters of Keith and Talbot, dis 
cussion of Nonjuring episcopate, and other documents 
on colonial period. 

B. Post-Revolutionary 

CaswalL, Henry, America and the American Church. 
London, 1839. The American Episcopal Church is seen 
by an Englishman who served some years in the min 

Gavin, F. S. B., ed., Liberal Catholicism and the Modern 
World. Morehouse Publishing Co., Milwaukee, 1934. 

Gore, Charles, ed., Lux Mundi, 2nd ed. John Murray, 
London, 1890. 

Griswold, A. V., Discourses on the Most Important Doc 
trines and Duties of the Christian Religion. Philadel 
phia, 1830. Sermons illustrative of the Evangelical point 
of view. 

Hobart, J. H., An Afology for Apostolic Order and Its 
Advocates. New York, 1807. 

Hobart, J. H., A Collection of the Essays on the Subject of 


Episcopacy which originally appeared in the Albany 
CentineL New York, 1806 (with others). 
Hobart, J. H., A Companion for the Altar, 4th ed. New 

York, 1835. 
Hobart, J. H., A Companion for the Boof^ of Common 

Prayer. New York, 1805. 
Hobart, J. H. ? A Companion for the Festivals and Fasts. 

New York, 1804. Based on Nelson's Companion. 
Hopkins, J. H., A Scriptural, Ecclesiastical and Historical 

View of Slavery. New York, 1864. 

Huntington, W. R., The Church Idea, 5th ed. Boston, 
1928. First published, 1870. Contains the famous "Quad 

Ives, L. S., The Trials of a Mind in Its Progress to Ca 
tholicism. Boston, 1854. 

Kemper, Jackson, Journal of an Episcopalian Missionary's 
Tour to Green Bay, 1834 f and Documents Relating to the 
Episcopal Church and Mission in Green Bay, 1825-41. 
Madison, 1898. Reprinted from Vol. XIV, Collections of 
the Wisconsin State Historical Society, The record of 
Kemper's first visit to the West. Important chiefly for 
its account of Cadle's difficulties with Green Bay School. 
Lowndes, Arthur, ed., Archives of General Convention, 
6 vols. New York, 1911. Hobart Correspondence, 1798- 
1806, edited with extensive notes. 

Mason, J. M., Essays on Episcopacy and the Apology for 

Apostolic Order and Its Advocates Reviewed. New 

York, 1844. A Presbyterian answer to Hobart 's defense 

of episcopacy. 

Mcllvaine, Q P., Oxford Divinity Compared with that of 

the Romish and Anglican Churches. London, 1841. 
Muhlenberg, W. A., Evangelical Catholic Papers, 2 vols. 
New York, 1875. Miscellaneous writings, collected by 
Anne Ay res. 
Newman, J. H., et al. f Tracts for the Times, 3 vols. New 

York, 1839. 

Perry, W. S., ed., Historical Notes Illustrating the Organ 
ization of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Claremont, 


New Hampshire, 1874. Mainly a collection of docu 

Potter, Alonzo, ed., Memorial Papers. Philadelphia, 1857, 
Essays by leading clergymen on subject of Muhlenberg 
Memorial, collected by Bishops' Committee. 

Selwyn, E. G,, ed., Essays Catholic and Critical. The Mac- 
millan Company, New York, 1930. Expressive of Lib 
eral Catholic viewpoint. 

Temple, William, ed., Essays and Reviews, 4th ed. Bos 
ton, 1862. Contains first use of Higher Criticism by 
Anglican theologians. 

Vail, T. H., The Comprehensive Church. Hartford, 1841. 
A scheme of Church unity similar to that proposed by 
Dr. Huntington 30 years later. 

Walworth, C. A., The Oxford Movement in America. 
New York, 1895. Reminiscences of General Seminary 
in the early forties, by a student who became a convert 
to Roman Catholicism. 

Waylen, Edward, Ecclesiastical Reminiscences of the 
United States. New York, 1846. The American Epis 
copal Church as seen by an English traveler. 

White, William, Commentaries Suited to Occasions of 
Ordination. New York, 1833. Illustrative of "White's 
theological position, as are also the three following 

W'hite, W'illiam, Comparative Views of the Controversy 
between the Calvinists and the Arrninians, 2 vols. Phil 
adelphia, 1817. 

White, William, Counter- Apology against Robert Bar 
clay, Quaker Apologist. Unpublished ms. in archives of 
Christ Church, Philadelphia. 

"White, William, Lectures on the Catechism of the Prot 
estant Episcopal Church. Philadelphia, 1813. 

White, William, Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church, 3rd ed. New York, 1880. A valuable source for 
period of organization and years following, but should 
be checked by contemporary documents as it was writ 
ten some years after the events it describes. 



(Those listed are selected either because of the importance 
of their subjects, or because they contain numerous letters 
or other contemporary documents. Most of the authors are 
contemporaries of their subjects.) 

Allen, A. V. G., Phillips Broo\s, 1835-93, E. P. Dutton & Co., 
Inc., New York, 1907. 

Allen, T. G,, Memoir of the Rev. Benjamin Allen. Philadel 
phia, 1832. 

Ayres, Anne, The Life and Wor\ of William Augustus 
Muhlenberg. New York, 1894. 

Barry,, J. G. H., Impressions and Opinions. Edwin S. Gor- 
ham, Inc., New York, 1931. Autobiography. 

Beardsley, E. E., Life and Correspondence of the Right Rev 
erend Samuel Seabttry, D.D. Boston, 1881. 

Breck, Charles, Life of the Reverend James Uoyd Brec^ 
D.D. New York, 1886. Chiefly a compilation of letters. 

Brown, W. M., My Heresy. John Day Co., Inc., New York, 
1931. Autobiography. 

Chase, Philander, Reminiscences, 2 vols., 2nd ed. Boston, 

Clark, T. M., Reminiscences, 2nd ed. New York, 1895. Deals 
mostly with his contemporaries. Little about himself. 

Coxe, G. W., Life of John William Colenso, D.D. London, 

Crapsey, A. S., The Last of the Heretics. New York, 1924. 

Croswell, Harry, A Memoir of the Late Rev. William Cros- 
well, D.D. New York, 1853. 

Cummins, A. M. (Mrs.), Memoir of George David Cum 
mins. New York, 1878. 

Doane, W. C., A Memoir of the Life of George Washington 
Doane, Bishop of Neu/ Jersey. New York, 1860. Highly 
inaccurate, especially in regard to his trial. 

Gadsden, C. E., An Essay on the Life of the Right Reverend 
Theodore Dehon, D.D. Charleston, 1833. Rather inade 


Grafton, C. C., A Journey Godward* Milwaukee, 1910. Auto 

Henshaw, J. P. K., Memoir of the Life of the Right Rev. 
Richard Charming Moore. Philadelphia, 1842. 

Hodges, George, Henry Codrnan Potter, Seventh Bishop of 
New Yor^. New York, 1915. 

Hopkins, J. H., Jr., Life of the Late Right Reverend John 
Henry Hopkins, First Bishop of Vermont and Seventh 
Presiding Bishop. New York, 1873. 

Howe, M. A. De Wolfe, Memoirs of the Lije and Services of 
the Rt. Rev. Alonzo Potter. Philadelphia, 1871. 

Howe, M. A. De W., Jr., The Life and Labors of Bishop 
Hare. New York, 1911. 

Johns, John, A Memoir of the Life of the Right Rev. Wil 
liam Meade, D.L>. Baltimore, 1867. 

Lawrence, William, Memories of a Happy Life. Houghton 
MifHin Company, Boston, 1926. 

McVickar, John, The Early and Professional Years of Bishop 
Hobart. Oxford, 1838. 

O'Grady, John, Levi Silliman Ives, Pioneer Leader in Cath 
olic Charities. P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1933. A 
rather inaccurate sketch. 

Perry, W. S., "The Life, Times, and Correspondence of 
Bishop White." Published in Church Review, March, 1887- 
January, 1888. Incomplete, but useful as far as it goes. 

Slattery, C. L., David Hummell Greer. New York, 1921, 

Smith, H. W., Life and Correspondence of the Rev. William 
Smith, D.D., 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1880. 

Sprague, W. B., ed., Annals of the American Episcopal Pul 
pit. New York, 1859. Biographical sketches of all impor 
tant Episcopalian clergymen who died before 1859. Written 
by acquaintances wherever possible. 

Stone, J. S., Memoir of the Life of the Rt. Rev. Alexander 
Viets Gristuold, D.D. Philadelphia, 1844. 

Stone, J. S., A Memoir of the Life of James Milnor f D.D., 
Late Rector of St. George's Church, New YorJ^. New 
York, 1848. 

Suter, J. W., The Life and Letters of William Heed Hunting- 
ton. D. Appleton-Century Company, New York, 1925. 


Turner, S. H., Autobiography. New York, 1863. Important 
for early history of General Seminary. 

Utley, G. B., The Life and Times of Thomas John Claggett. 
Chicago, 1913. 

Whipple, H. B., The Ughls and Shadows of a Long Episco 
pate. New York, 1899. Autobiography. 

White, Greenough, An Apostle of the Western Church. 
New York, 1900. Life of Jackson Kemper. 

White, Greenough, A Saint of the Southern Church. New 
York, 1897. Life of Bishop Cobbs of Alabama. This, and 
the biography of Kemper, are based on extensive research 
and contain a wealth of information concerning contempo 
rary men and manners, as well as their subjects. 

Wilson, Bird, Memoir of the Life of the Right Reverend 
William White. Philadelphia, 1839. 


Cross, A. L., Anglican Episcopate and the American Colo 
nies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 
1902. A definitive treatment of the subject. 

Dalcho, Frederick, A Historical Account of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in South Carolina. Charleston, 1820. 

Dix, Morgan, A History of the Parish of Trinity Church in 
the City of 'New Yor^, 6 vols. New York, 1898 ff. Vols. 
Ill and IV give extensive selections from Hobart corre 

Dorr, Benjamin, A Historical Account of Christ Church, 
Philadelphia. Philadelphia, 1841. 

Foote, H. W., Annals of King's Chapel, 2 vols. Boston, 

Greene, M. L., The Development of Religious Liberty in 
Connecticut. Boston, 1905. A definitive work. 

Hawks, F. L., Contributions to the 'Ecclesiastical History of 
the United States of America, Vol. I, Virginia; Vol. II, 
Maryland. New York, 1836-39. 

Keith, C. P., Chronicles of Pennsylvania, 2 vols. Philadel 
phia, 1917. 

Osgood, H. L., The American Colonies in the Seventeenth 
and Eighteenth Centuries, 5 vols. New York, 1924. Useful 


chiefly for background, but also supplies some direct in 
formation on the history o the Church. 

Pascoe, C. F., Two Hundred Years of the S.P.G. London, 
1901. Useful chiefly for its account of the Society's organ 

Perry, W. S., The Alleged "Toryism" of the Clergy of the 
United States. 1896(?). 

Perry, W. S., The History of the American JLpiscopal Church, 
2 vols. Boston, 1885. The first comprehensive history of the 
Church, and still the most important. 

Stevens, W. B., "The Church in Georgia before the Revolu 
tion." Published in Church Review. July, 1885. 


Abolition (see Slavery) 

Adams, John, 196 

Adams, Rev. William, 259-260 

Address from the Clergy of New Yor^ and New 
Jersey to the Episcopalians in Virginia, 167 

African missions (see Liberia) 

Alabama, Diocese of, 257, 260 

Alaska, 335, 336, 357 

Albany, New York, 122, 123, 148 

Alexandria, Virginia, 242 

Alien rights, canon on, 354 

All Saints 7 Church, New York City, 276 

All Souls' Church, New York City, 311 

Allen, Rev. Benjamin, 251, 253 

Allerton, Isaac, 23 

Allison, Rev. Francis, 170 

Amadas, Philip, 3, 4 

America and the American Church^ 248 

American Church Institute for Negroes, 338, 

American Church Missionary Society organ 
ized, 262; becomes auxiliary of Domestic and 
Foreign Missionary Society, 262, 343; receipts 
of, 325; begins work in Latin America, 342 

American Revolution (see Revolution, Amer 

"American Whig," pseudonym of William Liv 
ingston, 170 

Amherst, Lord Jeffrey, 122, 145 

"Anatomist" (William Smith), 170 

Anderson, C. C., presiding bishop, 351, 352 

Andover, Massachusetts, 93 

Andrews, Rev. John in Revolution, 181; ac 
cuses William Smith, 198; opposes Purcell, 
204; interview of, with Coke and Asbury, 

Andrews, Rev. William, 144 

Andros, Sir Edmund governor of New Eng 
land, 30, 31; aids Church in Boston, 32; 
imprisoned, 33; deposes Nicolaus Van Rens- 
selaer, 35; governor of Virginia, 66-68; dis 
pute of, with Blair, 67 

Anglo-Catholic Congress, 315, 359 

Anglo-Catholicism in Church of the Advent, 
264; origin of, in Oxford Movement, 266- 

273; liberalization of, 273, 348, 349; in 
General Seminary, 274-278; growth of, 314, 
315; Liberal Catholic Movement within, 349 

Anglo-Catholics theology of, 268-273; attitude 
of, towards Roman Catholicism, 271, and 
towards medieval thought and practice, 271, 
272; theory of, regarding sacraments, 273; 
missionary work of, 273; social interests of 
some, 273; charged with "Romanizing," 274, 
275, 314; favor free churches, 304; support 
Brooks, 310, 311; attitude of, towards 
Higher Criticism, 312, 313 

Anglo-Saxon legend, 272 

Anking, Missionary District of, 341, 356 

Anne, Queen, 44, 120, 160 

Anthon, Rev. Henry, 276, 277 

Anvik, Alaska, mission to, 335, 336 

Apocrypha, Carey's view of, 276 

Apology for Apostolic Order and Its Advocates, 
An, 221 

Apostles 7 Creed, 189, 196 

Appeal Answered, 169 

Appeal Defended, 169 

Appeal Further Defended, 169 

Appeal to the Public on Behalf of the Church 
of England in America, 169 

Apthorp, Rev. East, 100, 145, 169 

Archbishop of Canterbury (see Canterbury, 
Archbishop of) 

Archdeacon, suggested for colonies, 164 

Argall, Gov., of Virginia, 10 

Arkansas, Missionary Jurisdiction of, 260, 331, 

Arnold, Rev. Jonathan, 104 

Arrowsmith, L, 126 

Asbury, Bishop Francis, 205, 206 

"Associates of the late Dr. Bray, the,' 7 153 

Athanasian Creed, 189, 196, 200 

Athens, school at, 263 

Atkinson, Bishop Thomas in North Carolina, 
285; in General Convention, 1865, 293 

Atonement, Colenso's view of, 308 

Auchmuty, Rev. Samuel rector of Trinity Par 
ish, 116; in Revolution, 178 

Auricular Confession, 273, 284 




Aves, Bishop H. D., Bishop of Mexico, 342 
Ayers, Rev. William, in Revolution, 181 

Backhouse, Rev. Richard, 128 

Bailey, Rev. Jacob in Maine, 109, 110; re 
ports on Indians, 142 

Baintree, Massachusetts, Church in, 97, 98 

Baldwin, Rev. A. G., sent to West, 254 

Baltimore, Lord, founds Maryland, 35, 36 

Bankes, Richard, 31 

Banner of the Church, 244 

Banner of the Cross, 244 

Baptismal Regeneration Evangelicals object to, 
216, 295; Anglo-Catholic emphasis on, 273; 
Bishops' resolution on, 298; DeKoven's com 
ment on, 300 

Baptismal Service, revised, 352 

Baptists in New England, 42; influence of, 
on Churchmen, 61; in colonies, 63; in Mary 
land, 80; in South Carolina, 87; in North 
Carolina, 90; in Connecticut, 101; in Rhode 
Island, 107; in New Jersey, 133; in South, 

Barclay, Rev. Henry Rector of Trinity Church, 
116; work of, among Mohawks, 123, 145 

Barclay, Rev. Thomas in Albany, 122, 123; 
work of, among Indians, 122, 123, 143, 144; 
madness of, 123; work of, among Negroes, 

Barlowe, Arthur, 3, 4 

Barnard, Rev. John, 111 

Barton, Rev. Thomas in western Pennsylvania, 
132; among Indians, 141; in Revolution, 
181; petition of, 186 

Bartow, Rev. John sent to Westchester, 117; 
accused of inactivity, 118; visits New Jersey, 

Bass, Rev. Edward in Revolution, 176; con 
secration of, requested by Massachusetts, 199; 
elected Bishop, 199; consecrated, 201, 203; 
work of, as diocesan, 209; death of, 209 

Bass, Gov. Jeremiah, of East Jersey, 133 

Beach, Rev. Abraham in Revolution, 181; in 
reorganization, 193; supports Cave Jones, 223 

Beach, Rev. John in Connecticut, 104; con 
troversies of, 111; in Revolution, 176 

Bearcroft, Sect. Phillip, 55, 164 

Beasley, Rev. Frederick, 221, 253 

Beasley, Rev. John, work of, among Negroes, 

Bedell, Rev. G. T., aids Bishop Chase, 251 

Bedell, Bishop G. T., suspends MacQueary, 314 

Beecher, Rev. H. W., 294 

Bellomont, Lord, 143 

Bennet, Mr., reports Virginia dissent, 13 

Berkeley, Gov. William, of Virginia, 14, 16 

Berkeley Divinity School founded, 324; Paci 
fism of, 345; listed, 359 

Berrian, Rev. William, 227, 276, 277 

Bethesda College, 63 

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, center of Church popu 
lation, 358 

Bethune, Rev. David, in Rhode Island, 107 

Bexley, Lord, aids Bishop Chase, 250 

Bexley Hall, 250, 359 

Bible classes, 243 

Bible *societies Hobart's opposition to, 217, 
224; attitude of Churchmen towards, 218; 
supported by Griswold, 232 

Bible View of Slavery, 294 

Biblical Criticism (see Higher Criticism) 

"Billy the Kid," 328 

Binney, Horace, 279 

Birth control, 355 

Bishop of London (see London, Bishop of) 

Bishop Payne Divinity School, 338 

Bishops, colonial early proposals for, 154; 
need for, 154, 155; support of, 156, 160- 
162; southern opposition to, 157, 166, 167; 
petitioned for, 159, 16 1; project for sending, 
defeated by death of Queen Anne, 160; ad 
vocated by Pigot and Seeker, 161; Gibson's 
Memorial on, 162; advocated by Sherlock, 
162-164; intermittent appeals for, 164, 165; 
campaign for, reopened in sixties, 164, 165; 
appointment of, rumored among dissenters, 
164; effect of colonial politics on campaign 
for, 166, 167, 170; pamphlet controversy 
on, 168-170; newspaper controversy over, 

Bishops, English carry out Stuart policies, 158; 
without temporal power unknown in Eng 
lish Church, 155, 156; need for, acute after 
Revolution, 183; restrictions on, 189; dis 
trust of, 190, 203, 207, 209; plan for ob 
taining, 195, 196; obtained, 196, 199, 200; 
provisions for trial of, 200, 278, 279; alleged 
inactivity of, 207; restraints on, 207-209; 
moderation of, 209; vice-presidents of Mis 
sionary Society, 253; use of, in mission field, 

Blackburne, Archdeacon Francis, 169 
Blackwell, Rev. Robert, 181 
Blair, Commissary James career of, 44, 46, 
47; founds College of William and Mary, 
65, 66; controversies of, 67-68; protests 



against lack of induction in Virginia, 70; 
death of, 71 

Blair, Rev. John, in North Carolina, 88, 89 
Blaxton, William, "old planter," 27 
Board of Missions (see Domestic and Foreign 

Missionary Society) 
Bondet, Rev. Daniel in Westchester, 117, 118; 

among Indians, 143 
"Book Annexed," 321 

Book of Common Prayer first use of, in 
North America, 2; services of, read in Maine, 
5; use of, in Virginia under Commonwealth, 
15; use of, at Merry mount, 22; use of, in 
Salem, 24; efforts to introduce, into New 
England, 29; use of, in South Carolina, 81; 
prayers for King required by, 174; Athana- 
sian Creed omitted from, 189; revisions of, 
195, 200, 320, 321, 352, 353; attitude of 
Evangelicals towards, 215; in Confederate 
States, 290; attitude of Ritualists towards, 
295; said to contain law of Church on ritual, 
Boone, Bishop W. J. (I) missionary to China, 

263; Bishop of China, 263 
Boone, Bishop W. J. (II), in Shanghai, 341 
Boone University, Wuchang, 341 
Bosomworth, Rev. Thomas, 91, 141 
Boston sctded by Puritans, 25; choice of min 
isters at, 26; "old planters," 26, 27; begin 
nings of the Church in, 30-33; opposition to 
witchcraft panic in, 93; French Church in, 
97; work among Negroes in, 152; laity in, 
favorable to Independence, 175, 176; Church 
in, 1811, 230; early indifference to missions 
in, 230; St. Paul's Church, 240; Church of 
the Advent in, 264, 283, 284 
Boston, Christ Church (see Christ Church, Bos 

Boston, King's Chapel (see King's Chapel, Bos 
Boston, Trinity Church (see Trinity Church, 


Bowen, Rev. Nathaniel in Charleston, 234; 
rector of Grace Church, New York City, 234; 
Bishop of South Carolina, 235; agent for 
General Seminary, 240 
Boyle, Robert, 47, 68, 138 
Boys' schools (see Church schools) 
Braddock's defeat, 141 
Bradford, Gov. William, 21, 22 
Bray, Commissary Thomas in Maryland, 46, 
76; founds religious societies, 47-49; urges 

sending a bishop to the colonies, 159; re 
ceives letter from Urmiston, 170 
Brazil (see Southern Brazil) 
Breck, Rev. J. L. founder of Nashotah, 259; 
goes to Minnesota, 260, 261; work of, among 
Indians, 261, 265, 339; goes to California, 
261; examined by Bishop Onderdonk, 275; 
listed, 327 

Brent, Bishop C. H., 337, 356 
Brewer, Bishop L. R., in Montana, 334 
Bridge, Rev. Christopher, at King's Chapel, 50, 
95; in Newport, 95, 107; in Westchester, 

Bridges, John, 98 

Bridgewater, Massachusetts, Church in, 230 
Briggs, Rev. C. A., 312 
Bright, Rev. Francis, 27, 28 
Bristol, Rhode Island Congregational ists in, 

107; Church in, 108, 229-231 
Broad Churchmanship, 307 
Brooke, Bishop F. K., work of, among Indians, 

Brooke, Rev. John, in New Jersey, 133, 134, 

Brooklyn, New York first Church services in, 

179; St. Ann's Church, 223 
Brooks, Bishop Phillips at first Church Con 
gress, 309; career of, 310; theological views 
of, 310; objection to consecration of, 310, 
311; proposes greeting to Congregationalists, 

Brotherhood of St. Andrew, 322, 359 
Brotherhoods, religious, 314, 315 
Brown, Rev. Daniel, "Yale Convert," 103 
Brown, Stewart, 326 

Brown, Bishop W. M., tried for heresy, 349 
Browne, Rev. Arthur in Providence, 108; in 
Portsmouth, 109; opposes Dickinson, 111; 
answers Mayhew, 168 

Browne, Rev. Isaac, in Suffolk County, 121 
Browne, Rev. Marmaduke sent to Newport, 
108, 109; in New Hampshire, 109; work of, 
among Negroes, 153 

Browne brothers, opposition of, in Salem, 24 
Brownell, Bishop T. C. agent for General 
Seminary, 240; Bishop of Connecticut, 240; 
opposes raising funds in England, 249; patron 
of Missionary Society, 254; missionary tours 
of, 255; death of, 291, 292 
Brunot, F. R., 291 
Buchmanism, 347 
Buckley, "Yale Convert," 103 



Bull, Commissary W, T., Commissary in South 

Carolina, 86; work of, among Negroes, 151 
Bullivant, Dr. Benjamin, 31 
Burgess, Bishop George Bishop of Maine, 252; 

presents Bishop Doane, 281 
Burial Service, revised, 352 
Burlington, New Jersey Talbot in, 133, 135; 

In campaign for bishops, 159-161; convention 

in, 193; St. Mary's Hall in, 244 
Burnet, Gov., 122, 171 
Burton, Sect., 56 
Butler, Bishop Joseph, 164 
Byles, Rev. Mather, 175 

Cabot, John, 1 

Cadle, Rev. R. C. in Detroit, 254; at Green 
Bay, 255; at Nashotah, 259 

California, Diocese of work begun in, 26 1; 
applies for admission to General Convention, 
261; statistics, 327; divided, 333, 334 

California, state of, 331 

Calvert, Gov., 78 

Calvert family, 37, 59, 76 

Calvinism among Germans in New York, 123; 
questions of Bishops concerning, 278 

Cambridge, Massachusetts Church in, 100; in 
Revolution, 176; seminary proposed in, 242 

Cambridge Seminary (see Episcopal Theologi 
cal School) 

Campbell, Alexander, 121 

Campbell, R. E., Bishop of Liberia, 356 

Canada, 164, 177 

Canal Zone (see Panama Canal Zone) 

Candidates for Holy Orders in colonies, 62; 
in Virginia, 233; forbidden to preach, 233 

Caner, Rev. Henry in Boston, 99; in Fair- 
field, 104; urges sending a bishop to colonies, 
164; answers Mayhew, 168; flees to Halifax, 

Canfield, Mrs., founds Memphis orphanage, 326 

Canon on consecration of bishops, 204; on 
candidates, 233; on episcopal resignations, 
252, 279; on missionary bishops, 257; on trial 
of a bishop, 279; on suspension, 282; on 
provisional bishops, 282; on visitations, 282, 
283; on abandonment of episcopal com 
munion, 285; on intrusion, 295, 296; on 
ritual, 300, 301; on religious communities, 
315; on divorce, 320; on provinces, 322; on 
deaconesses, 325; on ordination outside of 
Church, 353, 354; on alien rights, 354; on 
marriage, 355, 356 

Canon law generally unenforced in colonies, 
43; English, declared in force in American 
Church, 296, 297 

Canons of 1603, 296-298 

Canterbury, Archbishop of proposal to transfer 
government of New England to, 28; receives 
petition from Maryland, 37; aids Society for 
the Propagation of the Gospel, 48, 49; cor 
respondents of, 55; hearing of Andros before, 
67, 68; receives petition from Swansea, 97; 
petitioned by Christ Church, Philadelphia, 
126; interest of, in work among Negroes and 
Indians, 137; in campaign for colonial bish 
ops, 162, 165, 166; objections of, to conse 
cration of Seabury, 194; objections of, to 
"Proposed Book," 198; agrees to consecrate 
American bishops, 196, 197 

Capital and labor Prof. Wilson's paper on, 
319; joint committee on, 319, 320; advised 
to seek partnership, 355 

Carey, Rev. Arthur, ordination of, 275-277 

Carlisle, Pennsylvania, missionary to, 132 

Carson, H. R., Bishop of Haiti, 342 

Carter, Lawson, 240 

Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United 
States Considered, 190, 221 

Cass, Lewis, governor of Michigan, 254 

Caswall, Rev. Henry, 248 

Cathedral in New York City, 314, 323; in 
Minnesota, 322; in Washington, 323 

Catholic reunion, resolution of Deputies on, 

Catholicism, Liberal (see Liberal Catholicism) 

Catholicization, tendency towards, 347, 348 

Caunt, Rev. Frederick, missionary to Puerto 
Rico, 326 

Census of 1890, 332, 333 

"Centinel, The" (Rev. Francis Allison), 170 

Centinel, Albany, 221 

Ceremonial (see ritual) 

Chamberlayne, Sect., 107, 121 

Chambers, Judge Ezekiel, 291 

Champlain, Samuel de, 142 

Chanco, Indian convert, 11 

Chandler, Rev. T. B. in New Jersey, 135, 136; 
father-in-law of Hobart, 136, 219; first 
choice for Bishop of Nova Scotia, 136; 
pamphlets of, 169 

Chapman, Rev. J. W., in Alaska, 335, 336 

Charles I, execution of, 15 

Charles II proclaimed in Virginia, 15; res 
toration of, 16; dealings of, with Massachu 
setts, 28-30 



harleston, South Carolina settled, 80; Mars- 
ton in, 81; Johnston in, 83, 84; public 
school in, 86; garden in, 86; Negro school 
in, 152; St. Michael's Church in, 234 
harleston Bible Society, 235 
harlton, Rev. Robert, work of, among Negroes, 


base, Bishop Carlton, Bishop of New Hamp 
shire, 232 

base, Senator Dudley, 248 

base, Bishop Philander early career of, 248; 
Bishop of Ohio, 248, 249; visits England, 
249, 250; controversy of, with Hobart, 249, 
250; founds Kenyon . College, 250; contro 
versy of, over Kenyon, 251; resigns jurisdic 
tion, 251; in Michigan, 252; Bishop of Illi 
nois, 252; founds Jubilee College, 252; 
listed, 326 

;hase, S. P., 248, 292 

lhauncy, Rev. Charles, opposes colonial bishops, 


iheckley, Rev. John early history of, 95; con 
troversies of, 96, 97; seeks ordination, 96, 
97; ordained, 97; sent to Providence, 97, 108; 
protests against Five Mile Act, 99; credited 
with conversion of Cutler, 103 

:heney, Bishop C. E., 299 

^heroche Indians, work among, 142 

^hesire Academy, 245 

Chester, Maryland, Washington College in, 181 

Chester, Pennsylvania, Church in, 127 

Cheyenne, Wyoming, missions in, 328 

Chicago, Bishop of, 336 

Chicago, Diocese of, Western Seminary in, 324 

Chicago-Lambeth Declaration, adopted by 
Deputies, 317 

Chickesaw Indians, work among, 14 1 

Child labor, 320 

Chinese Holy Catholic Church, 341 

Chinese Mission organized, 263; history of, 
340, 341; statistics, 1868-1871, 340, 341; 
statistics, 1890, 1915, 341; independent 
Church in, 341; statistics, 1935, 356, 357 

Chippeway Indians, 261, 265, 339, 340 

Choice Dialogues, 96 

Christ Church, Boston founded, 95; work 
among Negroes in, 152; petitions for a 
bishop, 16 1; aids Paul Revere, 175 

Christ Church, Hartford organized, 105; Chase, 
rector of, 248 

Christ Church, New Orleans, founded, 248, 254 

Christ Church, Philadelphia organized, 126; 
early history of, 126-130; Welton at, 129, 

170; granted charter, 129; St. Peter's Church, 
coordinated with, 130; has trouble with Mc- 
Clennachan, 130; Sturgeon assists in, 149; 
in Revolution, 180 

Christian Magazine, 221 

Christian Nurture Series, 353 

Christian Social Service committee on, 320; 
commission on, becomes department, 354 

Christian Socialism, rise of, 318, 319 

Christian Soldier and Children's Guest, 343 

Christian unity (see Church unity) 

Chung Hua Sheng Kung Hui, organized, 341 

"Church in America, The," proposed as name 
for Church, 315 

Church of the Advent, Boston Southgate, rec 
tor of, 264; controversy of, with Bishop 
Eastburn, 283, 284; free church, 304; Hall, 
rector of, 311 

Church of England provided for in Gilbert's 
charter, 2; in Monhegan Colony, 5; conformity 
with, required in Virginia, 12, 16; in Ply 
mouth Colony, 21-23; farewell of Winthrop 
to, 25; in Boston, 32; indifference of mem 
bers of, to colonial Church, 40; protected by 
Pennsylvania charter, 42; conformity to re 
quired in South Carolina, 81; protected by 
Massachusetts charter, 98; freedom of, secured 
in Pennsylvania charter, 125; unable to de 
velop type of episcopate needed in colonies, 
155; bishops declared unimportant in dis 
cipline of, 168; on eve of Oxford Move 
ment, 268; Anglo-Catholic theory of, 272, 

Church of the Holy Communion, New York 
City founded, 286; free church, 286, 304 

Church of the Holy Sepulchre, New York City, 

Church of the Holy Trinity, Paris, 346 

Church architecture, 242, 243, 272 

Church Army, 347, 358 

Church buildings, 62, 242, 243 

Church Club, 359 

Church colleges in colonial period, 123, 131, 
132; in early nineteenth century, 244, 245; 
in the West, 330; at present, 359 

Church Congress, American, 301, 309, 310, 
319, 359 

Church Congress, English, 309 

Church furnishings in colonies, 62; changes in, 
since Oxford Movement, 266, 267, 272 

Church Historical Society, 359 

Church Idea, The, 316, 317 

Church Identified, The, 301 



Church Journal, The, 244, 292 

Church League for Industrial Democracy, 359 

Church lifein Virginia, 17, 18, 70, 71; in 
colonies, 61, 62; in Maryland, 76, 77; in 
South Carolina, 86; changes in, 242, 243 

Church Life Insurance Corporation, 359 

Church Mission of Help, 322, 359 

Church papers (see Periodicals) 

Church Pension Fund, 350, 351, 358, 359 

Church Periodical Club, 359 

Church Properties Fire Insurance Corporation, 

Church Register, The, 244 

Church schools, 244, 330 

Church Unity declaration on, proposed by 
Madison, 206, 207; advocated by commit 
tee on Muhlenberg Memorial, 288; resolu 
tions of Bishops on, 288; possible contribu 
tions of the Church towards, 315, 316; with 
Swedish Church, 316; the Quadrilateral, a 
proposal for, 317; memorials on, 317; joint 
committee on, 317, 318; post-war efforts for, 
353, 354 

Churchman, The, 244, 276, 323, 359, 360 

Churchman; The Principles of the Churchman 
Stated and Explained, The, 224 

Churchman's Magazine, 227, 244 

Churchwomen's League for Patriotic Service, 

Cincinnati College, 249 

City Mission Society, 359 

Civil War, Church in, 290-294; effect of, on 
missions, 325, 326 

Claggett, Bishop T. J. in Maryland, 60; in 
Revolution, 182; consecration of, 201, 203, 
as diocesan, 209; illness of, 209, 222; juris 
diction of, in Delaware, 236 

Clark, Bishop T. M., 294, 309 

Clark, Rev. William, in Revolution, 176 

Clarkson, Bishop R. H., in Nebraska and 
Dakota, 329-332, 339 

Clay, Henry, 250 

Clay, Rev. Robert, in Delaware, 236 

Clayton, Rev. Thomas, in Philadelphia, 126 

Clergy colonial, numbers of, in North, 50, 51; 
salaries of, 52; discipline of, 56, 57; morals 
of, 57-61; increase of native colonials among, 
61; petition for a bishop, 159, 161; conven 
tions of, 165-167; stand of, in Revolution, 

Clergy, southern, in Revolution, 181, 182 

Clergy relief in colonies, 62, 63; in nineteenth 
century, 350; through Church Pension Fund, 
350, 351 

Clerical Associations Evangelical support of, 
218, 219; High Church opposition to, 219 

Cobbs, N. H., Bishop of Alabama, 260 

Coke, Rev. Thomas, 205, 206 

Cole, Rev. A. D., 260 

Colenso, Bishop J. W., case of, 308 

Collection of Essays on the Subject of Episcopacy, 

College of Philadelphia (see Philadelphia Col 

College of William and Mary founded, 65, 
66; Indians at, 68, 138; Madison, President 
of, 201, 209; theological professorship pro 
posed at, 241 

College Work, Commission on, 358 

Colorado, Diocese of, 332, 334 

Colorado Territory, 327 

Columbia College, Prof. McVickar at, 276 

Columbus, Christopher, 1 

Commentary on Romans, 308 

Commissaries first appointment of, 45; juris 
diction of, 45, 46; controversies of, with 
governors, 66-69, 71, 72; acceptance of, 156, 
159; decline of, in Virginia, 72, 167 

Commission on Home Missions to Colored 
People, 338 

Commissioners, for Indian Affairs in New Eng 
land, 142 

Commissioners, for settling the affairs of New 
England, 29, 154 

Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, 138 

Common Sense, 174 

Communion Service (see Holy Communion) 

Community of St. Mary, 359 

Companion to the Altar, 220 

Companion to the Festivals and Fasts, 220 

Comparative Views of the Controversy between 
the Calvinists and the Arminians, 245 

Comprehensiveness, pleas for, 300, 301, 309, 

Compton, Bishop Henry asks investigation of 
colonial jurisdiction, 45; appoints Commis 
saries, 45, 48; aids College of William and 
Mary, 66; sends minister to Newport, 107; 
on colonial bishops, 159, 160 

Confederate States, 290 

Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, 301 

Congregational Church, 317, 353, 354 

Congregationalism accepted by Puritans, 26; 
established in Connecticut, 105 



Congregationalists in Maryland, 37; rivalry of, 
with Church, 54; dispute among, 97; Church 
men required to support ministers of, 98, 
99, 105; church membership among, 101; 
conform to Church, 103, 104, 108, 110; in 
Bristol, 107; controversies with, 111; in New 
York, 113; convention of, 167, 168; oppose 
sending bishops, 158, 159, 167, 168 

Congress of the Confederation, 196 

Connecticut, colonial Church in, 101-104, 106; 
charter of, preserved, 101; Churchmen taxed 
in, 105; diversion of funds in, 106; White- 
field in, 106; work among Negroes in, 152, 

Connecticut, Diocese of Churchmanship in, 
189; in reorganization, 189, 190, 193, 195, 
199, 200; under Seabury and Jarvis, 209; 
Berkeley Divinity School in, 324 

Connecticut, State of, Church in, 177, 182, 183 

Constitution of the Church adopted, 195; 
amended, 200; signed, 200; revised, 321 

Continental Congress recommends fast, 179, 
180; Duche, chaplain of, 180; White, chaplain 
of, 180, 187; suspects Smith, 180 

Conventions, clerical, in colonies, 165, 166, 168 

Cook, Rev. J. W., 328 

Cook, Bishop Philip, 352 

Cook, Rev. Samuel, 149 

Cooper, Rev. Myles president of King's Col 
lege, 124; visits Mohawks, 146; goes to Eng 
land, 166, 167; visits South, 166; writes 
Address, 167; in Revolution, 178 

Cornbury, Lord sends Honeyman to Newport, 
107, 119; imprisons Presbyterian ministers, 
115; promotes Church in New York, 117, 
118; inducts Urquhart, 119; imprisons Moore, 
134; authorizes Neau to act as catechist, 148 

Corporation for the Promoting and Propagating 
the Gospel of Jesus Christ in New England, 

Corporation for the Relief of Widows and 
Orphans of Clergymen in Pennsylvania, New 
York and New Jersey, 193 

Corruptions of the Church of Rome Contrasted 
with Certain Protestant Errors, 224 

Cossit, Ranna, 176 

Coxe, Bishop A. C., 301 

Craik, Rev. James, 292 

Cranmer, Archbishop Thomas, 191 

Crapsey, Rev. A. C., case of, 314 

Crete, mission to, 264 

Critical Commentary on Archbishop Seeder's 
Letter, 169 

Croes, Bishop John, 236, 239 

Cuba, work in, 342, 357 

Culpeper, Lord, governor of Virginia, 17 

Cummings, Rev. Archibald, in Philadelphia, 

Cummins, Bishop G. D. in General Conven 
tion, 292; denied full jurisdiction in Ken 
tucky, 298, 299; withdraws from Church, 
299; organizes Reformed Episcopal Church, 

Curtice, Justice Joseph, 102 

Cuder, Rev. Timothy in Christ Church, Bos 
ton, 95, 103; in Stratford, 102; "Yale Con 
vert," 103; work of, among Negroes, 152 

Cutting, Rev. Leonard, 178 

Dakota Territory statistics, 1866, 327; eco 
nomic distress in, 331; growth of Church in, 

Dale, Governor Thomas, 8, 9 

"Dale's I^LWS," 8-10, 12 

Dallas, Diocese of, organized, 334 

Dare, Virginia, 4 

Dartmouth College, 145 

Daughters of the King, 322, 359 

Davenport, Rev. Addington, 98, 99 

Davies, Rev. Samuel, 72, 75 

Davis, Rev. Solomon, missionary to Oneidas, 

Davis, William, 5 1 

Dawson, Commissary William, 71 

Deaconesses Order of, 321, 322, 353, 358; 
schools for, 359 

Declaration of Independence, 172, 181 

Dedham, Massachusetts, Church in, 100 

Dehon, Bishop Theodore at Newport, 230; 
in Charleston, 234; Bishop of South Carolina, 
234, 235; Churchmanship of, 235 

Deism, 39, 47, 185 

DeKoven, Rev. James in General Convention, 
297-299, 301; elected Bishop of Illinois, 302; 
pleads for comprehensiveness, 306, 307, 310 

DeLancey, Bishop W. H., in western New 
York, 228 

Delaware, colonial Church in, 132; Diocese 
of, 236 

Delaware, Lord, 8 

Delaware River Church on, 125; Swedish set 
tlements on, 128 

Delius, Godfrey, work of, among Indians, 143 

Democratic Party, 244 245, 291, 294 

Derby, Connecticut, missionary to, 104 

"Descent into Hell," 189, 196 



Detroit, Michigan, mission to, 254, 255 

Dickinson, Rev. Jonathan, controversies of, 
with Churchmen, 111 

Dinwiddie, Gov. Robert, 71-73 

Discourse Concerning Episcopacy, 96 

Dissenters, colonial in Virginia, 13, 14, 72, 
73; in eighteenth century, 40, 54; in South, 
59; in Maryland, 79, 80; in South Carolina, 
84, 87; in North Carolina, 90; in New York, 
113, 115, 117, 119-121; oppose King's Col 
lege, 124; oppose colonial bishops, 158, 
159, 162, 167, 168; appointment of a bishop 
rumored among, 164 

Divinity School of the Pacific, 359 

Divorce, 320, 355, 356 

Dix, Rev. Morgan, 296, 311 

Doane, Bishop G. W. Bishop of New Jersey, 
236; at General Seminary, 240; founds St. 
Mary's Hall, 244; publishes Banner of the 
Church, 244; introduces amendment for 
trial of bishops, 279; trial of, 281 

Doane, Bishop W. C., 296, 310, 311 

Dobbs, Gov. Arthur, 152 

Doddridge, Rev. Joseph, in Ohio, 249, 258 

Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society Gris- 
wold's influence on, 232; publishes Spirit of 
Missions, 244; aids Caswall, 248; aids Illi 
nois, 252; founded, 252, 253; work of, in 
Florida, 254, 255; work of, in West, 254- 
262, 326-335; support of, 256; constitution 
of, revised, 256, 257, 343, 351, 352; policies 
of, 256, 257; supports Nashotah, 259; finan 
cial difficulties of, 262, 330; foreign work 
of, 262-264, 340-343; work of, among 
Negroes, 265, 326, 338; effect of Civil 
War on, 325, 326; American Church Mis 
sionary Society, auxiliary to, 343 

Dominican Republic, 357 

Dover, Delaware, Church in, 133 

Drake, Sir Francis, 2, 3 

Driggs, Rev. John B., in Alaska, 336 

Duche, Rev. Jacob in Christ Church, 180; 
chaplain of Continental Congress, 180; be 
comes a loyalist, 180; White studies under, 
187 , 

Duck Creek Reservation, 265 

Dudley, Governor Joseph in New England, 30, 
31; aids Church, 98 

Duluth, Diocese of, organized, 334 

Durand, Mr., Puritan elder in Virginia, 14 

Dutch at Albany, 122, 123, 143 

Dutch in New York, control legislature, 113, 

Dutch Church, New York City services of 
Church held in, 34; ministers of, assist at 
Vesey's induction, 115, and condemn desecra 
tion of Trinity Church, 115, and support 
work of Neau, 148; uses St. George's Chapel 

Dutchess County, New York, 113, 123 

Duty of the Clergy with Respect to Inculcating 
the Doctrine of the Trinity, 224 

Dyer, Rev. Heman, 309 

Dyer, Rev. Palmer, 247, 248 

Eager, Rev. Thomas, sent to Baintree, 97 

Eastburn, Bishop M. H. in Massachusetts, 232; 
in General Seminary, 240; and Church of the 
Advent, 283, 284 

Eastchester, New York, opposes Barton, 118 

Eastern Diocese organized, 228; character of, 
228; condition of, in 1811, 230; withdrawal 
of Vermont from, 231; growth of, under 
Griswold, 231; dissolution of, 232 

Eastern Oklahoma, Missionary District of, 334 

Eastern Oregon, Missionary District of, 334 

Eastern Orthodox Church Tractarian view of, 
271; efforts towards reunion with, 316, 354 

Eau Claire, Diocese of, Torok case in, 354 

Ecclesiastical customs (see Church life) 

Edson, Rev. E. H., missionary to Alaska, 336 

Edward VI, usage of, 296 

Edwards, Rev. Jonathan, begins "Great Awaken 
ing," 63, 100 

Effingham, Lord governor of Virginia, 65; 
resigns, 66 

Eighteenth century, characteristics of, 38, 39 

Elements of Christian Science, The, 259 

Eliot, Rev. Andrew, attacks Seeker, 162 

Eliot, Rev. John, work of, among Indians, 47, 

Elizabeth, New Jersey Chandler in, 135, 136; 
convention in, 168 

Elizabeth, Queen, 1-3 

Elliot, "Yale Convert," 103 

Elliott, Bishop, presents Bishop B. T. Onder- 
donk, 280 

Elliott, Bishop R. W. B., in West Texas, 334 

Ellis, Mathew, suit of, 99 

Ely, Prof. Richard T., 319 

Emery, Miss J. C., 343 

Emery, Miss M. A., 343 

Endicott, John, 24, 26 

English Church Missionary Society, aids Domes 
tic and Foreign Missionary Society, 253 



English Churchmen, indifference of, to colonial 
Church, 40 

English flag, mutilation of, at Salem, 26 

English government ecclesiastical policy of, in 
colonies, 40-42, 112, and New England, 41, 
42; failure of, to support Church in New 
England, 41, 42, 99; interest of, in conversion 
of Indians, 138; policy of, under first two 
Georges, 157; loyalty of Churchmen to, 166, 
167, 169, 172-183; attitude of southern 
Churchmen towards, 167; supports Colenso 

English politicians, opposition of, to colonial 
bishops, 156 

English politics, colonial ignorance of, 159 

Episcopal Theological School founded, 304; 
Liberalism in, 304; Higher Criticism in, 304 
312, 313; listed, 359 

Episcopate (see Bishops) 

Essays and Reviews, 294, 307, 308 

Essays Catholic and Critical, 349 

Establishment, colonial beginning of, in Vir 
ginia, 10; policy of English government with 
respect to, 40, 41, 112; effect of, on clerical 
morals, 58; difficulties of, in Virginia, 67; 
in Maryland, 74, 75; in South Carolina, 81; 
in North Carolina, 89, 90; in New York, 
112, 113 

Eucharist (sec Holy Communion) 

"Evangelical Catholicism," 285, 286 

Evangelicalism Griswold's attitude towards, 
214; origin and characteristics of, 214-217; 
in Virginia, 233; White's opposition to, 236, 
237; in Virginia Seminary, 242; in England, 
268; in Philadelphia Divinity School, 304; in 
Episcopal Theological School, 304; Liberal, 

Evangelicals in the South, 185; start Bible 
classes, 215, 243; methods of, 215; theology 
of, 215, 216; view of ministry, 216; charac 
teristics of, 216, 217, 218; seek greater free 
dom, 218, 295, 296; organize New York 
clerical association, 224; and Bishop Chase, 
251; organize missionary societies, 262; atti 
tude of, towards Oxford Movement, 269, 
and towards Thirty-Nine Articles, 270; work 
of, in the West, 273; opposition of, to Bishop 
Henry Onderdonk, 279; prosecute High 
Church bishops, 279, 280, 281; support 
Muhlenberg Memorial, 286, 287; stand of, 
on slavery, 290; object to Baptismal Re 
generation, 295; stand of, on Ritualism, 295, 
296; and Tyng case, 296; seek relaxation of 

canon on intrusion, 297; disappointed in 

General Convention of 1871, 298; radical, 

secede, 299; distrust General Theological 

Seminary, 303 
Evans, Rev. Evan in Philadelphia, 50, 126- 

128; visits England, 102, 128; urges sending 

a bishop to colonies, 159 
Evans, John, agent to Indians, 138 
Evanston, Illinois, seat of Seabury- Western, 261, 


Evolution of Man and Christianity, The, 314 
Ewer, Bishop John, sermon of, 169 

Fairfield, Connecticut Muirson in, 102; burned 

in Revolution, 177 
Falmouth, Maine, church at, 110 
Farquier, Gov. Francis, 71 
Federal Council of Churches, 318, 354 
Feltus, Rev. H. I., 223 
Ferguson, Bishop S. D. in Liberia, 342; death 

of, 356 

First Century Christian Fellowship, 347 
Fish, Hamilton, 293 
Five Mile Act in Massachusetts, 98 
Fletcher, Gov. Benjamin, of New York gets 

Establishment Act passed, 112, 113; prorogues 

Assembly, 114; inducts Vesey, 115; gives 

"Queen's Farm" to Trinity Church, 116 
Florida, colonial the Church in, 91; state of, 

early missions to, 254 
Flushing Institute, 244, 286 
Foote, Rev. G. W., 330 
Foreign missions (see Missions, foreign) 
Forward Movement, 352 
Fox, George, in North Carolina, 88 
Franklin, Benjamin and College of Philadel 
phia, 130; quarrels with Smith, 131; aids 

work among Germans, 132 
Frazer, Rev. William, in Revolution, 181 
"Free Church" Movement, 304, 305 
Free Examination of the Critical Commentary, 

A, 169, 170 
Freedman's Commission created, 326; work 

of, 326, 338 4 

Freeman, Bishop G. W., Bishop of Arkansas, 

French, influence of on Indians in Maine, 141, 

142; hostility of Iroquois to, 142 
French and Indian War, work of Barton in, 


Frink, Rev. Samuel, 14 1 
Frobisher, Martin, 1, 2 



Frontier few missions on, 256; passing of 

the, 332, 333 
Froude, Hurrell, 267 

Gadsden, Bishop C. E., 239, 259 
Gambier, Lord, aids Bishop Chase, 250 
Gambier, Ohio, Kenyon College founded at, 


Garden, Rev. Alexander, Commissary, 86, 152 
Garrett, Bishop A. C., in North Texas, 334 
Gates, Rev. Thomas, 191, 192 
Gavin, Rev. Anthony, work of, on Virginia 

frontier, 72 

Gear, Rev. E. G., early missionary, 248, 260 
General Clergy Relief Fund, established, 350 
General Convention friction between houses 
in, 288, 289; asked to sanction religious com 
munities, 314, 315; post-war stand of, on 
social questions, 354, 355; organization of, 
193, 195, 200; social measures of, 354, 355 
General Councils, Tractarian view of, 271 
General Theological Seminary founded, 239, 
240, 303; moved to New Haven, 240; 
Sherred bequest to, 241; New York control 
of, 241; scholars on faculty of, 245, 246; 
graduates of, in East, 249; Hobart solicits 
funds for, 250; graduates of, in mission field, 
259; Anglo-Catholicism in, 259, 274, 277, 
278, 301, 303; Evangelical distrust of, 303; 
finances of, 303; constitution revised, 303; 
listed, 359 
Geneva College, 244 
George I, 44, 157, 160 
George II, 44, 157 

George III favors Church, 44; aids King's 
College, 124; memorialized in behalf of 
colonial bishops, 162, 163 
Georgia, clergy of (see Clergy of Georgia) 
Georgia, colonial Whitefield and Wesley in, 
63; Church in, 90, 91; interest in Indians 
in, 141; work among Negroes in, 152 
Germans in Virginia, 73; in New York, 123; 

in Pennsylvania, 132 

Gibson, Bishop Edmund obtains commission 
to exercise jurisdiction in colonies, 46, 162; 
queries of, 60, 70, 75, 85, 137, 141, 149; 
ordains Checkley, 97; sends Cummings to 
Philadelphia, 129; issues pastoral letter on 
instruction of slaves, 150; in campaign for 
colonial bishops, 161, 162 
Gibson, Rev. Richard, 33, 34 
Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, 2 
Gilbert, Raleigh, 5 

Girls' Friendly Society, 322, 359 

Girls' schools (see Church schools) 

Glebes, in Virginia, 10, 70, 71, 185 

Glenton, Dr. Mary V., medical missionary to 

Alaska, 336 

"Glorious Revolution" in Boston, 33, 94; in 
New York, 35; in Maryland, 37, 74; effects 
of, 38; in Virginia, 65 
Gloucester, Dean of, 165 
Golden, Colorado, boys' school at, 330 
Goose Creek, South Carolina Thomas in, 82, 
139; Le Jau in, 82; work among Negroes 
in, 150 

Gore, Canon Charles, editor, Lux Mundi, 312 
Gorges, Sir Ferdinando, colonies of, 5, 6, 33, 


Gorges, Robert, in Plymouth, 21 
Gosnold, Bartholomew, 4 
Gothic Revival beginning of, 242, 243; influ 
ence of Hopkins on, 245; an expression of 
interest in Middle Ages, 272 
Governors, colonial, and Church, 43, 44 
Grace Church, New York City, Potter rector of, 

Grace Church, Providence, Anglo-Catholicism 

in, 274 

Grafton, Bishop C. C. in Seymour case, 301; 
Bishop of Fond du Lac, 302, 303; professed, 
304; criticizes Ritchie, 313 
Graham, Robert, 281 
Grant, Pres. Ulysses S., 339 
Graves, Bishop F. R., Bishop of Shanghai, 341 
Gray, Rev. Horatio N., missionary to Florida, 

Gray, Robert, Metropolitan of South Africa, 

"Great Awakening" Edwards and Whitefield 

in, 63, 99, 100; effects of, 100 
Great Barrington, missionary sent to, 100 
Greece, mission to, 262, 263 
Greek architecture, in colonies, 62 
Green, Bishop W. M., Bishop of Mississippi, 261 
Green Bay, school at, 255, 264, 265 
Grenville, Sir Richard, 3 
Griffin, Rev. Charles in Virginia, 72; work of, 

among Indians, 139 

Griffith, Rev. David in Virginia, 60; in Revo 
lution, 182; in reorganization, 190; attends 
Convention of 1784, 195; elected Bishop of 
Virginia, 196;- fails to obtain consecration, 
198; death of, 201 

Griswold, Bishop A. V. estimates number of 
clergy in Eastern Diocese, 210; consecrated 



bishop, 213, 222; sympathizes with Evangeli 
calism, 214, 232; early life of, 228, 229; 
elected bishop, 229; character of, 229, 230; 
as diocesan, 231, 232; aids Missionary So 
ciety, 232, 253; death of, 232; Presiding 
Bishop, 232; opposition of, to Oxford Move 
ment, 274 

Guy, Rev. William, sent to Narragansett, 108 
Gwatkin, Rev. Thomas, opposes sending bish 
ops, 166 

Hague Conference, 319 

Haight, Rev. B. I., examines Carey, 26 

Haiti Independent Church in, 342; statistics, 

1915, 343; 1935, 356, 357 
"Half-way Covenant," 101 
Hall, Bishop A. C. A., 310, 311 
Hall, T. C., 184 

Halliday, Rev. Thomas, in New Jersey, 134, 135 
Hankow, Missionary District of, 341, 356 
Hanover, New Hampshire, Indian school in, 


Hanson, Rev. F. R., in China, 263 
Hare, Rev. G. E., in Philadelphia Divinity School, 

Hare, Bishop W. H. at first Church Congress, 

309; work of, among Indians, 339, 340 
Hariot, Rev. Thomas, in Roanoke colony, 3 
Harris, Rev. Henry, at King's Chapel, Boston, 

95, 99 
Harris, Rev. William, on seminary committee, 


Harrison, Rev. Mr., in Virginia, 14 
Harrison, Rev. William on Staten Island, 122; 

in Newark, 122, 135; in Philadelphia, 128 
Hart, Gov. John, in Maryland, 60, 76 
Hart, Rev. Mr., "Yale Convert," 103 
Hartford, Connecticut Church in, 105; Chase 

in, 248 

Harvard College, 100 

Harwood, Rev. Nathaniel, in Burlington, 135 
Hawaiian Islands annexed, 335; bishop sent 

to, 337; statistics, 7902, 1910, 1915, 337; 

statistics, 1935, 357 
Hawks, Bishop C. S., in Missouri, 260 
Hawks, Rev. F. L. historian, 10, 245; de 
clines election as bishop, 257; election in 

Mississippi not confirmed, 260, 261 
Hcathcote, Col. Caleb in Connecticut, 102; 

supports Honeyman, 107; aids Trinity 

Church, 114; builds up Church in Westches- 

ter, 117, 118 

Hebron, Connecticut Church in, 104; Peters 
in, 106 

Hempstead, Long Island Church in, 121; in 
Revolution, 178 

Henderson, Commissary Jacob in Maryland, 
44, 60, 76; celebration of Communion by, 
77; urges work among Negroes, 150; charges 
of, against Talbot and Welton, 170 

Henderson, Rev. R. A., in Florida, 255 

Henley, Rev. Samuel, opposes sending bishops, 

Henrico Parish, Virginia, 9-11, 73 

Henry, Patrick, 73 

Henry VII, sponsors Cabot, 1 

Henshaw, Bishop J. P. K. in Rhode Island, 
232; in Missionary Society, 253; on Oxford 
Movement, 275 

Heresy trials, 31 4, 349 

Hervey, Sir John, governor of Virginia, 12 

Hicks, Robert, agent to Indians, 138 

Higbee, Rev. E. Y., examines Carey, 276, 277 

High Churchmanship of colonial missionaries, 
57, 173; in New England, 110; Hobart's 
leadership of, 213, 219; characteristics of, 
217, 218, 246; in North Carolina, 236; in 
Maryland, 235; in General Seminary, 24 1; de 
cline of, in England, 268 

High Churchmen in reorganization, 189; stand 
of, on Oxford Movement, 269; in Onderdonk 
trial, 280, 281; stand of, on Muhlenberg 
Memorial, 286, 287; stand of, on slavery, 
290; stand of, on Ritualism, 295, 296; sup 
port Brooks, 310, 311 

Higher Criticism introduction of, 307, 311 > 
312; in Episcopal Theological School, 312, 
313; Anglo-Catholic attitude towards, 312, 
313; Liberal Catholic acceptance of, 349 

Hill, Rev. J. H., and wife, in Greece, 263 

Hind, Sect., 167 

History oj the Non jurors, 111 

Hobart, Bishop J. H. early career of, 210, 219, 
220; Churchmanship of, 213, 219-221; con 
secration of, 213, 222; opposition of, to Bible 
societies, 217, 224; character of, 219, 220; 
writings of, 220; controversy of, with Pres 
byterians, 221, 222; in Cave Jones contro 
versy, 222, 223; "charges" of, 223, 224; 
pastoral letters of, 224; opposition of, to 
clerical associations, 224; popularity of, 225; 
work of, as diocesan, 225, 227; rector of 
Trinity Church, 226, 227; acquires Church 
man's- Magazine, 227; proposed as Bishop 
of Eastern Diocese, 229; compared with 



Griswold, 229; and Pennsylvania election, 
238; and General Seminary, 239-241, 250; 
founds diocesan seminary, 240; controversy 
of, with Philander Chase, 249, 250; visits 
Green Bay, 255; attitude of, towards Mis 
sionary Society, 256; work of, among Oneidas, 
264; father-in-law of Bishop Ives, 284 

Hobart, Rev. J. H., Jr., in Nashotah, 259, 260 

Hobart, Rev. Noah, opposes Church, 111, 168 

Hobart College founded, 244; at present, 359 

Hoffman, Very Rev. E. A., Dean of General 
Seminary, 303 

Hoffman, Judge Murray, 291 

Holbrook, Rev. John in Salem, New Jersey, 
135; work of, among Negroes, 149 

Holly, Bishop J. T., in Haiti, 342 

Holt, Rev. Arthur, work of, among Negroes, 

Holy Communion first, in North America, 2; 
first, in Virginia, 7; infrequent celebration 
of, in colonies, 18, 61, 71, 77, 86; Evan 
gelical view of, 216; growing emphasis on, 
242; neglect of, before Oxford Movement, 
266, 267; Anglo-Catholic view of, 273; sepa 
rated from Morning Prayer and Litany, 288; 
in ritualistic controversy, 300, 301 

Holy Communion, Church of the (see Church 
of the Holy Communion) 

Holy Cross, Order of the (see Order of the 
Holy Cross) 

Holy Unction, revived, 273 

Honevman, Rev. James in Newport, 107, 
108; sent to Jamaica, 119; work of, among 
Negroes, 153 

Honolulu, Missionary District of, 337, 357 

Hooker, Rev. Richard opinion of, cited, 114; 
cited by White, 191 

Hopewcll, New Jersey, work of Halliday in, 

Hopkins, Bishop J. H. in Vermont, 232, 242; 
in Pennsylvania, 238; in Boston, 242; founds 
school, 244; versatility of, 245; interest of, 
in Gothic revival, 245; prepares procedure 
for episcopal trials, 279; opposes H. U. Onder- 
donk's restoration, 279; stand of, on slavery, 
290; in Civil War, 292-294; Presiding Bishop, 
293; stand of, on Ritualism, 296, 306; at first 
Lambeth Conference, 309 

Hopkins, Rev. J. H., Jr. comment of, on 
lands in Vermont, 55; edits Church Journal, 
244; interest of, in lithography, 245; com 
ment of, on Pastoral Letter of 7562, 292 

Hopkinton, Massachusetts, Church in, 99 

Horrel, Rev. Thomas, in Missouri, 254 
How, Rev. T. Y. in episcopal controversy, 221; 
in organization of General Seminary, 239, 240 
Howe, General, enters Ne\v York, 178 
Howe, M. W. DeW. in General Convention, 
292; declines election as missionary bishop 

Hoyt, Rev. Melancthon, in Dakota, 332 
Hudson's Bay, Communion celebrated on, 2 
Hughes, Archbishop John, 285 
Huguenots in Virginia, 73; in South Caro 
lina, 87; in Boston, 97, 99; in Westchester, 
117, 118 

Hulse, Bishop W. R., in Cuba, 343 
Hunt, Rev. Robert, in Virginia, 8 
Hunter, Gov. Robert and Jamaica dispute, 120; 
incorporates church on Staten Island, 122; 
brings German settlers to New York, 123; 
commissioned to buy episcopal residence, 160; 
seeks colonial bishopric for Dean Swift, 161 
Huntington, Long Island, in Revolution, 178 
Huntington, Bishop D. T., in Anking, 341 
Huntington, Rev. J. O. S., founds Order of 

Holy Cross, 313 

Huntington, Rev. W. R. stand of, on Ritual 
ism, 302; rector of Grace Church, 302, 313; 
at first Church Congress, 309; leader of 
Liberals, 311; work of, on Prayer Book re 
vision, 313, 320, 321; advocates Order of 
Deaconesses, 313, 314, 321; and Cathedral 
of St. John the Divine, 314; contributions 
of, to Church unity, 316, 317 

Idaho Territory statistics, 1866, 327; minister 

in, 330 

Illinois, Diocese of beginnings of the Church 
in, 247, 248; organized, 252; elects Bishop 
Chase, 252; and Seymour case, 301, 302; 
elects DeKoven, 302; statistics for, 326 
Immaculate Conception, doctrine of, 271 
Independents (see Congregationalists) 
Indian Territory under Bishop Freeman, 260; 

missionary districts in, 334; work in, 340 
Indian traders, bad influence of, 140, 145 
Indiana, Diocese of early missionaries to, 248; 
obtains bishop, 260; statistics, 1836-1866, 

Indians at Roanoke, 3; first baptized, 4; re 
volt of, in Virginia, 1 1 ; work among, in Vir 
ginia, 10, 11, 68, 138, 139; kindness of 
Maverick to, 27; work among, in Maryland, 
77; work among, in South Carolina, 82; revolt 
of, in South Carolina, 85; work of Eliot and 



Whcelock among, 137; indifference to con 
version of, in colonies, 137; distrust Eng 
lish, 138; discussion of, in South Carolina, 
3.39^ 140; interest in, in Georgia, 14 1; work 
among, in Pennsylvania, 141; attitude to 
wards, in Maryland, 141; work among, in 
New England, 14 1, 142; in Maine, 14 1, 
142; work among, in New York, 142-146; 
work among, in United States, 261, 264, 265, 

Induction provision for, in Virginia, 12; dis 
pute concerning, . in Virginia, 13, 67-70; 
neglected in South Carolina, 87 
Ingle, Bishop J. A., in Hankow, 341 
Iriglish, Bishop Charles in New York, 116, 
178; early Methodist leanings of, 116; be 
comes Bishop of Nova Scotia, 116; work of, 
in Dover, 133; visits Mohawks, 146; an 
swers Paine, 174; corresponds with White, 
191; furnishes testimonial to Seabury, 194 
Ingoldsby, Lt.-Gov., excommunicated, 134 
Innes, Rev. Alexander in New York, 35; in 

New Jersey, 133 
Institutional churches, 311 
Inter-Church Conference on Federation, 318 
International Peace Congress, 319 
Iowa, Missionary District of, 258, 259, 327 
Irish Protestants, in New York, 145 
Iroquois Indians hostility of, to French, 142; 

work among, 142-146 
Isle of Kent, Maryland, Virginians on, 36 
Isle of Shoals, Maine, Gibson on, 34 
Ives, Bishop L. S. in North Carolina, 236; 
conversion of, to Roman Catholicism, 284, 285 

Jacobitism Checkley accused of, 96, 97; Tal- 
bot accused of, 129, 135, 170; Welton ac 
cused of, 129, 170; constant under first two 
Georges, 157; among colonial missionaries, 


Jamaica, Long Island Church in, 119-121; in 
Revolution, 179 

James I colonial policy of, 6; connives at Pil 
grim settlement, 20, 28; declares slaves not 
emancipated by Baptism, 147 

James II, 30, 101 

Jamestown, Virginia, 6, 7 

Japan, persecution of Christians in, 341 

Japanese Missionstarted, 263, 264; statistics, 
1890, 1915, 341; history of, 341, 342; inde 
pendent Church in, 356; statistics, 1935, 
356, 357 

Jarratt, Rev. Dcvereux, 214, 215 

Jarvis, Bishop Abraham sent to Middletown, 
106; in Revolution, 176, 177; elected Bishop 
of Connecticut, 199; authority of, as bishop, 
209; consecrates Hobart and Griswold, 222 
Jarvis, Rev. S. F. in organization o General 
Seminary, 240; quoted by DeKoven, 300, 301 
Jay, James, 124 
Jay, John, 196, 223, 253 
Jay, William, opponent of Hobart, 224 
Jenney, Rev. Robert in Trinity Church, 115, 
128; in Rye, 115; in Hempstead, 121; in 
Christ Church, Philadelphia, 128, 129; op 
poses MacClennachan, 130; supplants Neau, 
148; assisted by Sturgeon, 149 
Jesuits in Maryland, 75, 79; among Iroquois, 


Johnson, Bishop I. P., founds Witness, 124 
Johnson, Gov. Nathaniel, in South Carolina, 82 
Johnson, Rev. Samuel receives letter from 
Seeker, 53, 164; on Church in Connecticut, 
101; "Yale Convert," 103; ordained, 103; in 
Connecticut, 104, 105; on Church usages, 
110; controversies of, 111; President of 
King's College, 124; sought as President of 
College of Philadelphia, 130; suggests mis 
sionary for Indians, 142; advocates colonial 
bishops, 161, 164; prompts Chandler's Ap 
peal, 169 

Johnson, Rev. S. R., in Indiana, 258 
Johnson, Sir William, and the mission to the 

Mohawks, 145, 146 

Johnston, Commissary Gideon on South Caro 
lina clergy, 82; difficulties of, 83; reports 
grievances of clergy, 84, 151; death of, 86; 
interest of, in Indians, 140 
Johnston, Bishop J. S., in West Texas, 334 
Jones, Rev. Cave, controversy of, with Hobart, 

222, 223 

Jones, Bishop Paul, case of, 345 
Jordan, Rev. Robert, 34 
Jubilee College, founded, 252 
Judson, Justice James, 102 
Junior Auxiliary, organized, 343 
Justification Evangelical view of, 215; Trac- 
tarian and Protestant views of, 270 

Kansas, Diocese of divided, 334; Missionary 

Jurisdiction of, 260, 327 
Kay, Rev. William, case of, 70 
Keble, Rev. John, 267 
Keith, Rev. Cleveland, in China, 263 
Keith, C. P., quoted, 125 



Keith, Rev. George early career of, 49, 126; 
missionary tour of, 50, 51; opens church in 
Chester, 127; in New Jersey, 133 

Keith, Rev. Reuel, 242 

Keith, Gov. William, expels Welton, 129 

Kemp, Bishop James death of, 234, 235; 
Bishop of Maryland, 235; opposes diocesan 
seminary, 242 

Kemper, Bishop Jackson accompanies White, 
211; in Society for Advancement of Chris 
tianity in Pennsylvania, 212; missionary work 
of, 212, 257-264. 

Kemper College, founded, 258 

Kennett, Bishop, sermon of, 160 

Kentucky, Diocese of early missionaries in, 
254; obtains a bishop, 257; Ritualism in, 
298; action of, on Smith's resignation, 298, 
299; statistics, 1836-1866, 327 

Kenyon, Lord, aids Chase, 250 

Kenyon College, 250, 251, 359 

Key, F. S., patron of Missionary Society, 253 

Kilgour, Bishop, consecrates Seabury, 194 

King, Bishop John, 44 

King, Rufus, on seminary committee, 239 

King's Chapel, Boston organized, 31; built, 
32, 33; in "Glorious Revolution," 33, 94; 
Keith in, 50; growth of, 94, 95; under 
Price and Caner, 99; petitions for a bishop, 
161; lost to Unitarians, 175, 176 

King's College founded, 123, 124; becomes 
Columbia, 124; in Revolution, 178 

"King's Farm," given to Trinity Church, 116 

Kinnersley, Ebenezer, 131 

Kinsman, Bishop F. J., 349 

Kinsolving, Bishop L. L., in southern Brazil, 
342, 343 

Kip, Bishop W. L, sent to California, 261, 327 

Knight, Bishop A. W., in Cuba, 343 

Knowlys, Rev. Mr,, sent to Virginia, 14 

Kohne, Frederick, 241 

Kyoto, Missionary District of, 242, 356 

Labor and capital paper of Dr. Wilson on, 
319; joint committee on, 319, 320; advised 
to seek partnership, 355 
Lacey, Dr., Negro school of, 326 
Ladd, Rev. W. P., Dean of Berkeley, 324 
Laity lack of discipline among, in Virginia, 
18; in Revolution, 173, 174; representation 
of, in ecclesiastical councils, 189, 191; in 
Civil War, 291 

Lambeth Conference first, 308, 309; arranges 
inter-communion with Swedish Church, 316; 

adopts Quadrilateral, 317; secures inter -com 
munion with Old Catholics, 354 
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Barton in, 132 
Lane, Gov. Ralph, at Roanoke, 3 
Lang, Rev. John, complaint of, 149 
Latin America, work in, 262, 342, 343, 356, 


Laud, Archbishop William, 28, 45, 154 
Lausanne Conference, 354 
Law of Ritualism, The, 296 
Lawrence, Sect. Thomas, 74, 126 
Lawrence, Bishop William, 348, 350, 351 
Lay, Bishop H. C., 260, 329 
League of Nations, 344 

Learning, Rev. Jeremiah in Norwalk, 106; 
in Newport, 106; work of, among Negroes, 
153; in Revolution, 177; declines election as 
Bishop of Connecticut, 193, 194; furnishes 
testimonial to Seabury, 194; corresponds with 
White, 199 

Lectures on the Catechism, 245 
Lee, Bishop Alfred, in Delaware, 236 
Lee, R. H., aids consecration of bishops, 196 
Leisler, Jacob, 35 

Lejau, Rev. Francis in Goose Creek, 82; work 
of, among Negroes, 82, 150, 151; interest 
of, in Indians, 82, 139, 140; comment of, on 
Maule, 83; poverty of, 84 
Leonard, Bishop Abiel, 331, 332 
Leslie, Rev. Charles, 96 
Letters of a Westchester Farmer, 17 4 
Lewes, Delaware, missionary sent to, 133 
Lexington, Kentucky, seminary in, 248 
Liberal Catholicism, 273, 274, 349 
Liberal Catholicism in the Modern World, 349 
Liberal Evangelicalism, 349, 350 
Liberalism and Ritualism, 302; in Philadelphia 
Divinity School, 304; in Episcopal Theologi 
cal School, 304; rise of, 307, 308; comes to 
America, 309, 310; in Church Congress, 
309, 310; leading exponents of, 310-314; 
lessens opposition to Anglo-Catholicism, 314; 
function of, 348 

Liberalization of the Church, 347, 348 
Liberian Mission, started, 263; history of, 1865- 
1915, 342; statistics, 1890, 1915, 342; after 
World War, 356; statistics, 1935, 356, 357 
Liggins, Rev. John, in Japan, 263 
Lincoln, Dean of, sermon of, 49 
Linn, Rev. Dr., opposes Hobart, 221 
Living Church, The, 323, 360 
Living Church Annual, The, 323, 360 
Living Church Quarterly, The, 332, 333 



Livingston, Robert, 143 

Livingston, William, 169, 170; writes as "Amer 
ican Whig," 170 

Livingstons, the, won over to Church, 123 
LlandlafF, Bishop of, 169 
Locke, John, 80 

Lockier, Rev. John, in Newport, 107 
Lockwood, Rev. Henry, in China, 263 
London, Bishop of asked to find ministers for 
Virginia, 10, 44; aids proposed college in 
Virginia, 11; jurisdiction of, in colonies, 17, 
44-46, 76, 183; proposal to transfer gov 
ernment of New England to, 28; corre 
spondents of, 55; quarrel of, with Cal verts, 
59; aids College of William and Mary, 66; 
hearing of Andros before, 67; forbids Vir 
ginia clergy to support Nicholson, 68; sends 
Johnston to Charleston, 83; assistant at King's 
Chapel appointed by, 95; ordains Checkley, 
97; sends minister to Newport, 107; supports 
Honeyman, 107; ordains Vesey, 115; sends 
Vicary to Philadelphia, 128, 129; interest 
of, in work among Indians, 137; in cam 
paign for bishops, 154, 159-166; records of, 
in Hawk's transcripts, 245 
London Company chartered, 6; religious in 
terests of, 7; charter of, revised, 8, 10; seeks 
ministers for Virginia, 10; dissolved, 12; 
grants charter to Pilgrims, 20 
Long Island the Church on, 119-121; in Revo 
lution, 178, 179 
Los Angeles, Diocese of, 334 
Lotteries, 62 

Louisiana, Diocese of, 257, 333 
Low Churchmanship, pre-Evangelical, 188 
Low Churchmen leadership of, in reorgani 
zation, 188, 189; view of episcopacy among, 
188; attitude of, towards Thirty-Nine Ar 
ticles, 270 

Lutheranism among Germans in New York, 123 
Lutherans, overtures for union from, 207 
Lux Uundi, 312, 313 
Lyford, John, 21, 22 

Macfarlane, Miss, aids Chase, 240 

Mackenzie, Rev. Aeneas, on Staten Island, 122 

MacQueary, Howard, trial of, 314 

Madison, Bishop James in Revolution, 181, 
182; hinders consecration of Griffith, 198; 
election and consecration of, 201; objects to 
presidency of Senior Bishop, 201; proposes 
declaration on Church unity, 206, 207; con 
fines himself to College, 209, 222 

Mahan, Rev. Milo, 291 

Maine, colonial Church in, 34, 109, 110; 
annexed by Massachusetts, 34; Roman Catho 
lics in, 141, 142 

Maine, Diocese of in Eastern Diocese, 228; 
in 1811, 230; growth of, under Griswold, 
231; elects Bishop Burgess, 232 

Maine Coast, colony on, 5 

Mansfield, Rev. Richard, 176 

Manteo, Indian convert, 4 

Marblehead, Massachusetts, Church in, 98, 230 

Marriage cooperation on, proposed, 317, 318; 
canons on, 320, 355, 356; discussed, 320; 
of deaconesses, 353 

Marriage Service, revised, 352, 353 

Marriott, Rev. G. W., aids Chase, 250 

Marsden, Rev. Richard, in Charleston, 83 

Marshall, Rev. Samuel, in South Carolina, 80 

Marston, Rev. Edward removed from Charles 
ton, 81; seeks re-instatement, 83 

Martin, Rev. David, in Philadelphia Academy, 

Mary, Queen, 66, 94 

Maryland, colonial founded, 35, 36; Church 
in, 36, 37; Protestant revolution in, 37; Hen 
derson in, 44; Bray in, 46; report of Keith 
on, 51; case of Tibbs in, 60; Church estab 
lished in, 74, 75; education in, 75; moral 
conditions in, 76; Church life in, 76, 77; 
attempts to discipline the clergy in, 77, 79; 
tobacco acts in, 78; Roman Catholicism in, 
79; attitude towards Indians in, 141; work 
among Negroes in, 149, 150; in campaign 
for bishops, 16 1 

Maryland, Diocese of in reorganization, 186, 

191, 192, 196; declaration of, on episcopate, 

, 208; under Bishpp Claggett, 209; elects 

Bishop Stone, 234, 235; elects Bishop Kemp, 

235; seminary proposed in, 242; Ajiglo-Ca- 

tholicism in, 282, 283; Trapnell case in, 282, 


Maryland, State of, Church disestablished in, 

186; Vestry Act in, 186 
Mason, Capt. John, 33 
Mason, Rev. J. M., 221, 222 
Masons, attitude of Churchmen towards, 218 
Massachusetts, colonial sends ministers to Vir 
ginia, 14; and Morton, 23, 24; first settle 
ment in, 25, 26; "old planters" in, 26, 27; 
petition for religious toleration from, 28; 
under Charles II, 28-30; weakening of Puri 
tanism in, 92-94; Church in, 94, 95, 97-100; 
activities of Checkley in, 95, 97; toleration 



required by charter of, 98; laws against 
Churchmen in, 98, 99; Whitefield in, 99, 
100; work among Negroes in, 152 

Massachusetts, Diocese of in reorganization, 
195, 199, 200, 201; under Bishop Bass, 209; 
elects Bishop Parker, 209; without a bishop, 
209, 210; in Eastern Diocese, 228; growth 
of, under Griswold, 231; elects Bishop East- 
burn, 232; supports motion for a general 
seminary, 239; efforts to found a seminary in, 
242; controversy on visitations in, 283, 284; 
elects Bishop Brooks, 310 

Massachusetts, State of, Church in, in Revo 
lution, 175 

Massachusetts Coast, early settlements on, 4, 5 

Mather, Rev. Cotton, 92, 93, 104 

Mather, Rev. Increase attacks Church, 33; 
attacks Keith, 50; interest of, in witches, 92, 
93; opposes Church in Connecticut, 104 

Maule, Rev. Robert, in South Carolina, 83 

Maverick, Samuel, "old planter," 27 

Mayflower, the, 20 

Mayhew, Rev. Jonathan, 168 

McClennachan, Rev. William, 109, 130 

McCoskry, Bishop S. A. in Michigan, 258; 
sermon of, 290 

Mcllvaine, Bishop C. P. in Ohio, 251; and 
Kenyon College, 252; opposes Oxford Move 
ment, 275, 278; presents Bishop Doane, 281; 
writes pastoral letters, 292-294; goes to Eng 
land, 294 

McKean, Rev. Robert, 166 

McKim, Bishop John, in Japan, 342 

McLaren, Bishop W. E., 313, 324 

McMaster, B. B. J., 277 

McSparran, Rev. James, in Rhode Island, 108; 
sermon of, 111; work of, among Negroes, 

McVickar, Rev. John, examines Carey, 276, 277 

Mead, Rev. W. C., 291, 292 

Meade, Bishop William in Virginia, 233, 234; 
candidate for assistant bishop in Pennsylvania, 
237; instructions of, to Bishop Boone, 264; 
presents Bishop Onderdonk, 280; presents 
Bishop Doane, 281 

Memorial Papers, 287, 288 

Mercer, C. F., on seminary committee, 239 

Mercier, Cardinal, 354 

Meredith, William, on seminary committee, 239 

Merrymount, 22, 23 

Methodists, 184, 205-207, 214 

Mexico, 342, 343, 357 

Michigan, Diocese of, 254, 255, 258, 326 

Middle Ages, Anglo-Catholic interest in, 272 

Middle Colonies, characteristics of, 112 

Middle States at close of Revolution, 182; in 
reorganization, 189 

Middle West (see West, Central) 

Middletown, Connecticut Church in, 104; 
Jarvis sent to, 106 

Miles, Rev. J. W., 259 

Miller, Rev. Ebenezer, 98 

Miller, Rev. John, 154 

Miln, Rev. John in Albany, 123; work of, 
among Indians, 123, 144, 145; reports on 
work among Negroes, 148 

Milnor, Rev. James in Pennsylvania election, 
237, 238; aids Chase, 251; patron of Mis 
sionary Society, 253; visits Green Bay, 255, 

Minaud, Rev. Peter, in St. Louis, 258 

Ministers shortage of, 256, 329, 330; number 
of, 1935, 360 

Minnesota, Diocese of organized, 260; cathe 
dral in, 322; statistics, 1836-1866, 327; di 
vided, 334 

Minnesota, missionary district of first mission 
ary to, 248; under Kemper, 260; Breck in, 

Minturn, R. B., 326 

Missionary bishops, provision for, 257 

Missionary Society for the West, organized, 262 

Missions, domestic in the West, 247-262, 326- 
335; in Florida, 254, 255; among Indians, 
261, 264, 265, 338-340 

Missions, foreign work begun in, 262-264; re 
vival of interest in, 264; growth of, 1865- 
1915, 340-342; statistics, 1935, 356, 357 

Missions, territorial, begun, 335-337; after 
World War, 356, 357; statistics, 1935, 357 

Mississippi, Diocese of in Southwestern Dio 
cese, 257; case of Dr. Hawks in, 260; obtains 
a bishop, 261 

Missouri, Diocese of early missionaries in, 254; 
obtains a bishop, 260; statistics, 183 6-1 866 ', 
327; divided, 334 

Modernist controversy, 348, 349 

Modest Proof of the Order and Government in 
the Church, 96 

Mohawk Indians work among, 123, 142-146; 
driven out by rebels, 146, 179 

Mohican Indians, 142 

Moir, Rev. James, 152 

Monasticism, revival of, 271, 272, 304, 313 

Monhegan Island, Maine, settlement on, 5 



Monmouth County, New Jersey Innes in, 133; 
seeks a missionary, 135; work among Ne 
groes in, 149 

Monrovia, Liberia, Church in, 263 

Montana Diocese of, 334; Territory of, 330 

Montgomery, General, 180 

Moore, Col., in South Carolina, 85 

Moore, Bishop Benjamin in Revolution, 179; 
furnishes testimonial to Seabury, 194; Bishop 
of New York, 210; paralysis of, 210, 222; 
in episcopal controversy, 221; in Cave Jones' 
controversy, 223; rector of Trinity Church, 
225, 226; death of, 227 

Moore, Rev. C. C., and General Seminary, 246 

Moore, Bishop R. C. supports Cave Jones, 223; 
work of, in Virginia, 233, 234; Churchman- 
ship of, 233; patron of Missionary Society, 

Moore, Rev. Thorogood, 134 

Moore, William,' 131 

Morals of colonial clergy, 57-61 

Moravians, 137, 317 

Morehouse, F. C., 323 

Morell, Rev. William, 21 

Mormonism, converts from, 331 

Morris, Lewis and Trinity Parish, 114; criti 
cizes Bartow, 118; and Jamaica dispute, 120; 
and Thorogood Moore, 134 

Morritt, Rev, Thomas, in Charleston, 86 

Morton, Thomas, 22, 23 

Mosher, Bishop G. F., in Philippines, 356 

Moskito Indians, 142 

Motte, Rev. M. I., hi Florida, 254 

Muhlenberg, Rev. W. A. founds boys' school, 
244, 286; theological position of, 285, 286; 
Memorial of, 285-288; social work of, 286, 
311; founds sisterhood, 286; explains Me 
morial, 287; and free church movement, 304; 
seeks greater liturgical freedom, 320 

Muhlenberg Memorial presented, 285, 286; ex 
plained, 287; results of, 287, 288 

Muirson, Rev. George in Connecticut, 101, 
102; in Westchester, 118 

Munro, Rev. Henry, in Albany, 123, 145, 179 

Murray, Bishop J. G., Presiding Bishop, 351 

Myles, Rev. Samuel invites Keith to preach, 
50; rector of King's Chapel, 94; has trouble 
with Bridge, 95; seeks aid for French Church, 
97; death of, 99 

Name of the Church adopted, 186, 187; pro 
posals to change, 315 

Nantucket, Massachusetts, Anglo-Catholicism in, 

Narragansett, Rhode Island Church in, 107j 
108; work among Negroes in, 153 

Narragansett Indians, seek a missionary, l4l 

Nash, Prof., higher critic, 312, 313 

Nash, Rev. Daniel, early missionary, 226, 247 

Nash, Rev. Norman, 255 

Nashotah House early history of, 259, 260, 
274, 275; at present, 359 

National Council, 351, 352, 354 

National Federation of Churches, 318 

Nationwide Campaign, 351, 352 

Neau, Rev. Elias, work of, among Negroes, 148 

Nebraska, Diocese of organized, 332; Terri 
tory of, statistics, 1836-1866, 327; economic 
distress in, 331 

Negroes first cargo of, 10; work among, in 
Maryland, 77, 149, 150; general indiffer 
ence to conversion of, 137; difficulties of 
work among, 146, 147, 150, 151; effect of 
conversion on, 147, 151, 265; work among, 
in the colonies, 146-153; in a minority in 
the South, 183; work among, before the 
Civil War, 265; complaints of discrimination 
against, 323; work of Freedman's Commis 
sion among, 326, 338; American Church In 
stitute for, 338 

Nelson, Rev. Robert, in China, 263 

Nevada State of, 331; Territory of, statistics, 
1866, 327 

New Amsterdam, becomes New York, 34 

New Brunswick, New Jersey, Convention at, 
1784, 193 

New England, in Revolution, 173, 175-177; 
role of, in reorganization, 189; in General 
Convention, 1189, 200; loss of population 
in, 230 

New England, clergy of (see Clergy of New 

New England, colonial united with New 
York, 30; feared by English government, 41, 
42; special interest of Society for the Propa 
gation of the Gospel in, 52, 53; Churchman- 
ship in, 110; controversies in, 111; .indiffer 
ence to Indians in, 14 1; work among Negroes 
in, 152, 153 

New English Canaan, The, 23 

New Hampshire, colonial Church in, 33, 34, 
109; captured by Puritans, 34 

New Hampshire, Diocese of in General Con 
vention, 1795, 200; in Eastern Diocese, 228; 



in 2811, 230; under Griswold, 231; elects 
Bishop Carlton Chase, 232 

New Haven, Connecticut Church in, 105; 
General Seminary moved to, 240; Berkeley 
Divinity School moved to, 324 

New Jersey, clergy of (see Clergy of New Jersey) 

New Jersey, colonial clergy relief in, 63; 
Church in, 133-136; work among Negroes 
in, 149; petition for a bishop from, 16 1 

New Jersey, Diocese of supports anti-Seabury 
resolutions, 197; Ogden case in, 204; elects 
Bishop Crocs, 236; trial of Bishop Doane in,